MovieChat Forums > The End of America (2008) Discussion > If only more people would watch this the...

If only more people would watch this the Republican party would fall.

posted 15 years ago by DonnaCreate
21 replies | jump to latest

I think that if more people would watch this movie that the Republican party would fall when the elections for Congress and the Senate come up in 2 years cause they would realize how much the Republican party helped Bush try to destroy the rights and freedoms of America and help Obama to get all of those rights and freedoms back by Democrats (amazing that they are the party that is closest to the word democracy) who currently are being stopped by the Republicans in Congress and the Senate. If they were given full power then laws could be enacted to put Bush away for war crimes and make sure the the Republicans never are able to try and destroy this our country again.

[–] chinese_man_77 15 years ago

fail. this movie was awful and your opinion is terrible. If people weren't blinded by the media, they would realize how bad of a president Obama is and will be.

9,000 earmarks in the stimulus package. wow.

[–] cslbsu25 15 years ago

OP you are an idiot. Bush may have limited some of our rights, but really it wouldn't effect anyone who doesn't break the law which is most of use. Obama will being limiting the basic rights of what this country is based on, being capitalism and the chance for anyone to prosper without being taxed to death (You know taxes, one of the biggest reasons for the American Revolution) to pay for someone else. If he continues down this path were are all going to be *beep* By the way George Bush is not the spokesman for real republicans. Small gov't, fiscally conservative, no more of this wasting money *beep* People need to wake up it is our money they throw around. That is all.

[–] kenneglds 15 years ago

>>> (You know taxes, one of the biggest reasons for the American revolution)

The founding fathers had no problems with taxes. They were very aware that taxes were necessary in running a country. Their big ISSUE was TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. There is a HUGE differance.

Regardless of how much you might personally resent the fact that you are being taxed, YOU have representation.

Please don't bring up the founding fathers when you don't really know what you're talking about in that regard.

[–] bigtuna2168 15 years ago

I do think that the Founding Fathers would have a problem with the taxes they have now. Be successful, get taxed. Do anything get taxed. Spend spend spend spend spend. I think they would be upset at the foreign affairs we get into. How about the fact that congress will not listen to the people today. Good luck with your belief that the founding fathers would love this is so terribly flawed it's almost ignorant.

I am just disagreeing with you. In America, we have the freedom of speech. The right to disagree.

[–] kenneglds 15 years ago

When did I say ALL the founding fathers would love what is going on. The founding fathers did not walk in lock step about everything. In fact they very rarely walked in lockstep. They disagreed on a lot of things, and there was a lot of fierce arguing among them. Btw, one of the things there was a lot of arguing on was whether we should get involved in some of the foreign affairs of the day.

But the founding fathers did understand the value of taxes in running a country. That is very basic. You just can't run a country without taxes.

And some of the taxes Americans had to pay back then was very unpopular among the populace.

And your apparent belief that ALL the founding fathers would agree with the way you see these things, is as "ignorant", as you accuse my views of being. (even though I never said all the founding fathers would love what is going on) Some of the founding fathers would probably agree with you, and some wouldn't.

What I said was that the founding fathers didn't have issues with taxes. They had a big issue with taxation without representation.

[–] bigtuna2168 15 years ago

Exactly, the point. The populous is upset, and rightly so, that the government is giving trillions of dollars to people who do not deserve it. The populous has expressed their opinions and desires and the people in power do not care.

I am just disagreeing with you. In America, we have the freedom of speech. The right to disagree.

[–] kenneglds 15 years ago

You apparently missed the part where I said you can't run a free country without taxes, no matter how much the public dislikes them, and the founding fathers understood that.

Taxes have always been, and always will be unpopular among the populace. That doesn't change the fact that they are a very necessary part of running a country.

And while you may not like taxes, because "undeserving people" are helped, you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that the entire U.S.A populace walks in lockstep with you on this matter. You are right, the people have spoken. They elected Obama president by a large margin. Even through there is a widespread perception throughout the land that he will raise taxes.

You have every right to your own opinions and feelings. But you seem to have a habit of assuming people always walk in lock-step with you. 1st you automatically assume that ALL the founding fathers would see things as you do. And now you think the American people as a whole see things exactly as you do, despite the result of the last election.

[–] bigtuna2168 15 years ago

No, what I believe is that American Politicians should be accountable for something. Watch when people confront Barney Frank (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pk--Ox49L0). No one will take accountability. I believe that some people deserve help, not cradle to grave welfare we have here. Being a college student I do not get helped out by the "stimulus" plans. Get into a mortgage you can't afford. No problem. Run your company into the ground. Here's a trillion dollars. Speak out against raising taxes, the inflation of budgets, and just terrible moves in general you get criticized. The emergency bills they passed with hundreds of millions of dollars for non-essential earmarks. I preach financial responsibility, and that raising taxes is not the answer. I believe that NAFTA should not have been ratified. Want truly free trade, a reflexive tariff, meaning that we tax items at the same rate other countries tax our goods. I don't ever believe that taxes aren't necessary. I do believe that the people in power should listen to their constituents. If people were against JUST taxes, they wouldn't pass referendums to allow them.

I am just disagreeing with you. In America, we have the freedom of speech. The right to disagree.

[–] kenneglds 15 years ago

>>> what I believe is that American Politcans should be accountable for something.

They are. It's called "running for reelection". If they stay in power as a result, it's because the PEOPLE chose to keep them in power.

>>> Run your company into the ground. Here's a trillon dollars.

I am not an economics expert. And the buyout of Wall street and Detroit does leave a bad taste. But I gotta think that letting industries, that are part of the back-bone of this country's economic structure, crash and burn on a wide-spread scale, would not be a good thing for this country's economy. And most of what I've heard and read from people who are economic experts, seem to agree with that.

As I said, I am not an economic expert. But I suspect most of the Americans protesting against the buyouts aren't economic experts either. I suspect their protests are coming a lot more from their disgust over the idea of the buyouts, than it is coming from any expertise they have on whether or not the buyouts are necessary. The problem with that, considering the problems we now face, maybe some expertise is necessary.

Having said that, I admit, that maybe government could have put more stipulation on the buyouts, than they did.

>>> Speak out against raising taxes, the inflation of budgets, and just terrible moves in general you get criticized.

So what? In a free society you have the right to "speak out". Others have the right to critcize you for doing so. As long as the criticism doesn't turn into a lynch mob, as per the Dixie Chicks speaking out against Bush jr.

>>> I preach fiancial reponsibility

I said you are perfectly entitled to your views. Just don't assume that America as a whole, is walking in lock-step with you.

>>> If people were against JUST taxes, they wouldn't leave pass referendums to pass them.

You can't simply leave it up to the populace to decide what taxes we have. People are too self-centered by nature, and are driven too much by self-interest. And they also often lack understanding or appreciation as to how important some things are. If what taxes we had were simply a matter of public referendum, many necessary things would be ignored or neglected, or shortchanged. You might want to leave it completely up to the populace to decide what taxes we have. But I wouldn't trust them with that for 1 second.

[–] bigtuna2168 15 years ago

So what you are saying is that we should trust our tax money to people who receive money from people to influence their votes? I'm saying that if politicians want to pass a tax or a budget they should justify it. Look at all the pork that was in the last bill, there's so much that isn't needed. And currently financial experts are saying the big three should go into bankruptcy. As I stated before, many of the financial problems in America have been brewing for years. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs a link to debate about changing regulation rules. Barney Frank talks about Fannie and Freddie being fine, and then later states in interviews that he does not take responsibility for anything right now. If you do not believe that the people will understand or appreciate the issue at hand, bring it to them. When you hear more about Octamom on the news then current issues, that's a problem. Elections generally come down to a few spots where a difference can be made. I come from Democrat run Chicago in Democrat run Illinois that is only going to elect Democrat senators because Chicago is a Democrat city that runs the state. Roland Burris is an arrogant ass, but I'll bet he'll get reelected because the minority vote will vote for him because of the color of his skin. In Illinois, politicians had to stop telling Burris to step down because the Black ministers would not support them for their reelection bids. Again showing that politicians will bow down to special interest groups if they think it will get something done. That's why ethics bills are never passed, but what would happen if ethics bills were put up for referendum and the population was INFORMED. Bailing out Wall Street was a terrible idea because they did run themselves into the ground making terrible loans and selling them off to the world. Here's one economists view: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/10/what-caused-the.html How the credit crisis works: http://vimeo.com/3261363 Again, if people would have taken responsibility or read the paperwork and the politicians took a stand things would be much different. If the newspapers spoke out about what politicians did instead of having a love affair with one group and vilifying the other. They need to bring back honest debate and inform the population. Scare tactics should be removed, even the Obama administration uses them, and replaced with actual facts. I think this country was once great and needs to change the way they're running it now with financial responsibility. A balanced budget would be one way of doing it. How about a comprehensive line by line review of the budget. I think that if more people had the information about the budget and programs that waste money things would be much different.

I am just disagreeing with you. In America, we have the freedom of speech. The right to disagree.

[–] kenneglds 15 years ago

>>> What you are saying is that we should trust our tax money to people who receive money from people to influnce their votes.

Why not? We trust them to make our laws, why not trust them with our taxes. Or do you think our laws should all be a matter of public referendum as well?

My opinion is the last high profile public referendum we had concerning law, didn't work out so well. The one where the good liberal people of Californa voted to deny equal rights to gays and lesbians. People are often driven by their own self-intersest, and by their hate and prejudices, and by their ignorances.

You seem to see a nobility in the "comman man". That they will do the right thing. What you may not understand is that in a free society, which is a democracy or a republic, the populace tends to get the government and the politcans they deserve. If the system is corrupt (and it is), then we are not a victim of the corruption. Rather, the corruption starts with us.

Btw, who do you think politcans are pandering to, when they deny gays equal rights? They are pandering to us and our hates. Who do you think they are pandering to, when they pander to the NRA? They are pandering to us, or a significent portion of "us". The same thing when they pander to the religious right. We the people often make up the special interest groups, and we take our hate, prejudices, and intolerances with us.

Or maybe you think government pandering is only bad, when it is done for big business. I would disagree that is the only time it is bad.

As flawed as our sytem is, and as corrupt as it might be, I would rather have it conducted with a limited amount of people, representing the various interests (the left, the right, the moderates, big business, labor, the religious right, etc) in this country, rather then have everything decided by the hundreds of millions of people that make up the populace, who will not only tug this country in humdreds of millions of directions to suit each of their own particular means and prejudices , but can also be turned into a mob easily enough, driven by their hate, intolerance, and ignorance.

Who do you think our politcans were pandering to when they gave Bush a blank check after 9/11. And who do you think they were pandering to when they backed the Iraq war? In both cases they were pandering to us.

Politcans do not tend to be overly idealistic people. They tend to be pragmatists who have picked a side to play on. They are ususally pandering to somebody. And it is often our prejudices and intolerances that they are pandering to.

The system we have now is very flawed, but it is better than a system where everything is based on public referendum. The founding fathers deveopled this system, because they really didn't have a lot of trust in the populace. They were right.

And the government has been justifying the buyouts. Just because you don't like what they have been saying or doing, doesn't mean they haven't been justifying it.

And again, politcans are accountable, it's called running for reelection. And they know they are accountable, as the populace is who the politcans spend a lot of time pandering to. So the populace does have a big and important say, as they most definately should.

Again, it's far from a perfect system, but I'll take it over the one you might want.

[–] bigtuna2168 15 years ago

Running for reelection means nothing in some areas. Nanci Pelosi could come out tomorrow in support of clubbing children in public like they were seals, and I would guarantee that she would get reelected no problem. Accountability in politics, how about term limits, or making it a part time job like it was supposed to be? Why not put the raises they give themselves up for referendum? Why not demand that when they add a rider to a bill they have to sign their name. No more pork spending unless you back it up with who you are instead of all the secret things. The funny thing about the California referendum is that California is an overwhelmingly LIBERAL state. And if I remember correctly, the war in Iraq was approved by the Senate, which still isn't accountable for their actions. There could have been a filibuster, or they could have actually debated the facts, which they failed to do. The PATRIOT Act, as it was passed, is so watered down from what it originally was, they're almost two different bills. Saddam Hussein played a game with the US, and he lost. When he wouldn't follow the sanctions after the first Gulf War he openly dared the UN to do something. Then there was the food for oil scandal and everyone knows the UN is useless. Hussein should have allowed the inspectors unfettered access as originally described, but he wouldn't allow it. You can debate the legitimacy of the Iraq War, but we're there for a while. I'll never disagree that people are notoriously self centered, which is why having a select few that pander to the needs of even fewer is depressing.

I am just disagreeing with you. In America, we have the freedom of speech. The right to disagree.

[–] kenneglds 15 years ago

>>> Nancy Pelosi could come out tomorrow in support of clubbing children in public like they were seals, and I would gunatatee that she would get elected no problem.

I'm not sure whether you are referring to some kind of corruption going on, or just the fact that she is popular enough to automatically get reeelected every time. If it's the former, what do you have to back it up? And if it's the latter, it means an awful lot. It means the people in her area, are very satisfied with her, and are choosing to continously send her back. Which is how the system is supposed to work.

I do believe she comes from a very liberal area, and she is known as both a liberal politcan, and a very efficient politcan, so the fact that the populace in her area would keep reelecting her, does not seem that big a surprise.

>>> How about term limits

Personally, I am not a big fan of term lmits. I don't see any great need to replace people who are good at their job with people who might not be as good, just because their term limit has expired. If a politcan's time comes to an end, it should be because the people have decided it should come to an end. However, I do understand that there is also merit to the other side of the argument, and that there are a lot of people on the other side of the argument.

But term limits don't really count as accountability. In fact, they might work against accountability. They might give politcans license to feel they have no accountability, and can do anything they want, as their time is running out anyway.

>>> Or making it a part time job like it was supposed to be.

Never in this country's history has politics been a part time job. Not when it came to running big government. Maybe, when it came to being a small town mayor, or small town council member, it can be a part time job, but it's never been that way with big governement, whether you are talking about USA history, or world history. Nor do I think it's realistic that politics can only be a part-time job when it comes to running big goverment.

>>> Why not put the raises they give themselves up to referendum

Now that I would agree with.

I would also agree with them signing their names to a rider, but on the other hand, if people aren't that well informed about what their politcans are doing in government, it's often because they aren't making the effort to be more informed. There are a lof of things they could do to be more informed.

>>> The funny thing about the California referendum is that California is an overwhelmingly liberal state.

Which was kind of my point. If an overwhelmingly liberal state is going to bring their hate and intolerances together to deny another group of people equality (I'm pro-gay marriage, I don't know where you stand), what chance does gay marriage have in the rest of the country. IMO, the fact that this happened in a state that is strongly liberal, is a strike against the idea of government run by referendum. It showes how the populace can be driven by their intolerance, and their predudices. It also showed how they can be controlled.

There is a line in a Charlie Chaplin movie (one of his talkies). A woman asks Chaplin if he likes people. Chaplin answers;

"I like them as indivuals, not as a group. As indivuals, each person is capable of greatness. As a group, they're like a monster with its head cut off. Capable of being prodded in any direction."

IMO, there is a lot of truth to that line. And I'd rather not have too many referendums given to a headless monster.

>>> And if I remember the war in Iraq was approved by the senate

Because they were pandering to the public and the media, both of which were loudly and clearly banging the drums for war, and lapping up everything team Bush was selling. Policans don't tend to be overly brave people to begin with, when it comes to politics, they weren't about to defy both the media and the public by challenging Bush on this. This was a time when you were accused of being anti-American if you merely questioned what Bush was doing.

It was the fear of accountability that made the senate rubber-stamp everything Bush was doing. It was the fear that they would be cruicfied by the media, and be denied reelection by the public.

If you want to blame our politcans for this, fine, they deserve it. But so does the media, and the American public. It was a combination of all 3.

Yes Sadam played a game with the US and lost. And Bush was being told by some of his own experts and the UN that the evidence against Iraq was inconclusive, which he ignored, because war monger that he is, he was chomping at the bit for war.

And while the UN had a scandal, it's not like the USA has been scandal free or corruption free. We really have no business or credibility looking down our nose at the UN, because they had a corruption scandal.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] AllMac 15 years ago

I did not know that you are destroying yourselves from inside.

What was that at the end of the docu where the former US president wishes he was a dictator? WTF??

[–] cslbsu25 15 years ago

I wasn't saying that we should be stripped of our rights. I am just saying we all know what the law is or can find out and most of us abide by them. Secondly, I know the founding fathers agreed with taxes that wasn't my point and I really do not give a *beep* about the founding fathers at this point. I am worried about the spending of the taxes we pay by the politicians that WE have voted in on both sides of the aisle. It is a mockery. Bush spends it on an unpopular war and now we have Obama spending it on social programs and bailouts of industries that have been in trouble and subsidized for decades (auto). A poster stated earlier it's not about representation when the Gov't is owned by special interest on both sides liberal and conservative. We basically get two candidates to vote for and both are usually in it for different reasons than they convey in their campaign. Please do not tell me I do not know what I'm talking about, I have a BS in Political Science and History, I've worked in the mortgage industry which has a huge impact on this economy, and I am currently studying at a top law school with an MBA kicker. Even with all that student loan debt I don't even come close to thinking that I have all the answers, I just know that if you put the partisan crap aside and just look at the numbers are money being wasted plus money from china, etc. etc. it is putting this country in a hole that we may never be able to recover and I am genuinely scared. The only thing I can think of which would save us is going back to the ingenuity that helped us become a great country in the first place and the gov't has to get out of the way for this to happen.

[–] matrixj23 15 years ago

This has nothing to do with Republicans. You are missing the point.

I will admit it, I bought the lie and voted for Obama.
However, I am realizing more and more everyday that Obama is no better than Bush.
Actually, he is more dangerous because of his eloquence and intelligence.
Everyday, this country is gently tip-toeing towards fascism.

Our rights are quietly disappearing.

Obama has appointed 31 Czars that answer only to him.
He runs the entire show without checks and balances from Congress.

This is a very dangerous situation.

Slowly people will begin to realize this, but by then it will too late.

The Democrats and Republicans are being paid out of the same pocket.

The higher-ups that really run thing have gradually gained control of both parties.

The two party system is just a facade to get people to argue and divide us.

People need to wake the hell up and band together, spread valid information, and work AGAINST the government and protect each other.

"Belief is the Death of Intelligence" - Robert Anton Wilson

[–] ssiladi 15 years ago

There is blood on the hands of both parties, just watch movies like the Fog of War and War made Easy to know that we have been whipsawed by whomever was in power being beholden to special interests. As it stands now, Bush, Jr. was extreme and is responsible for the untimely death of tens of thousands if not over 100,000 innocents who would still be alive today if not for the unjustified war in Iraq.

[–] AtheistRevolution 14 years ago

While I agree Bush was awful which didn't surprise me. I was born in Texas and knew he would be awful. He behaved just like an entitled *beep* that never had to work for anything in his life. And idiots bought his crap about being Southern guy that you can have a beer with. When in reality he is Connecticut old money bastard that never worked for anything in his life. Although the Republicans are obvious with supporting corporations,limiting rights,etc. The Democrats just make it more subtle. But they both get paid from the same pockets. There won't be any change without campaign and electoral reform.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.

[–] Seller7862 13 years ago

The left = insane people posting insane thoughts trying to get other people to redefine insanity as mature, logical, rational thought.

Right now there are thousands of those types sitting inside the Wisconsin state legislature telling taxpayers that state employees deserve higher incomes and better benefits than those paying their salary. The insane part is, even after failing at their jobs (2/3 of middle school kids read and write below their grade level in Wisconsin) they actually believe they're entitled to a compensation package that has already bankrupted most states and soon the federal gov't.

BTW, the OP obviously is ignoring the comment made by Obama's wife that she was never proud of her country until her husband became President.

It's an Obamanation that the electorate voted into office a man who hates the very country he is tasked with leading. I guess the America-hating people outnumber the America-loving people.

[–] jrm45629 12 years ago

To opening post. That is simply the dumbest thing I've read this year, maybe this century. If anyone is so completely devoted to either political party because they clearly can't think on their own, they deserve what's coming to them. Unfortunately, it is morons like yourself that will bring the rest of us down with you; or at least try to.

"Democrats (amazing that they are the party that is closest to the word democracy)" YOU ARE A SIMPLE TWIT!