MovieChat Forums > America: Imagine the World Without Her (2014) Discussion > The hate for this movie was predictable

The hate for this movie was predictable

posted 10 years ago by randxts
46 replies | jump to latest

I saw the reviews over at Rotten Tomatoes and was not surprised at all that the predominantly liberal Hollywood critics would hate this movie and none of their reviews are even on technical aspects of the movie. It is all on political ideology.

To those of you who have not gone to see this, I will tell you the same thing I tell my students at the start of every new year. Do not blindly believe what I, or any other teacher tells you. We all have our biases and while some of us try and keep that out of the classroom, others cannot or will not. Believe whatever you want but always do your own thinking and look into all sides of an issue before coming to a decision. Evaluate the info as well as who is telling it to you. I'd say the same thing about movies. Critics cannot be trusted. They are in the picket of Hollywood elites and are as predictable as the sun rising tomorrow.

Hollywood is liberal. A movie like this was never going to get a fair review because reviewers (and the news media in general) abandoned all pretense of fair and unbiased a long time ago. Go and see it for yourself and then decide.

I watched it and the filmmaker gives both sides of the argument, something Michael Moore will never do because he knows he'd be made to look like a fool and the illusion he's created around himself would vanish. That's the mark of a good man and a good argument. Is the person willing to engage with his detractors and give them their say. This filmmaker did and continues to willingly debate those who disagree with him. Biased men from the other side (Redford, Moore, Penn) will not engage with their detractors. Moore will sometimes, but most often he goes to Maher and MSNBC and other "safe" venues. They don't have a strong argument which is why you'll never see them face an opponent.

Their lies about America are based on extreme manipulation and omission of facts. I challenge anyone to try me on this, all I ask is that you bring an open mind and save the insults (the liberals' favorite weapon).

I also like how some commentators here attack the filmmaker for being a felon. That's extremely hypocritical sense I bet at least half of Hollywood are felons or former felons. That itself does not make the filmmaker's point invalid.

Bottom line: Don't believe me. Don't believe anyone. See it and trust your own intelligence and common sense.

[–] Katz5 10 years ago

Wow, Fox Entertainment brainwashing at its finest. Let's take your points, one by one.

To those of you who have not gone to see this, I will tell you the same thing I tell my students at the start of every new year.

Students? Where do you teach? Liberty University?

Do not blindly believe what I, or any other teacher tells you. We all have our biases and while some of us try and keep that out of the classroom, others cannot or will not. Believe whatever you want but always do your own thinking and look into all sides of an issue before coming to a decision.

This is good advice, but hopefully you show your students both sides of the picture. A good educator presents both sides of the equation. And unless you also show your students documentaries like Why We Fight (about the U.S. and the ruling of the Military Industrial Complex in this country), No End in Sight (about the criminal invasion of Iraq and the goat screw "occupation,)" and any of Michael Moore's documentaries, your students should be encouraged to ignore your lecturing.

Evaluate the info as well as who is telling it to you.

The exact same thing can be said about the commentators and those interviewed in the other documentaries I mentioned.

I'd say the same thing about movies. Critics cannot be trusted. They are in the picket of Hollywood elites and are as predictable as the sun rising tomorrow. Hollywood is liberal. A movie like this was never going to get a fair review because reviewers (and the news media in general) abandoned all pretense of fair and unbiased a long time ago. Go and see it for yourself and then decide.

Oh please. Hollywood is "liberal"....that old hogwash again? Actually I'd say Hollywood is about as apolitical as you can get. It's about making money, money, money. Hollywood was left leaning in the '70s, when anyone with half a brain protested against the Vietnam War and the Nixon crooks. Nowadays, with the exception of some of George Clooney's and Matt Damon's films, Hollywood is about money. Sean Penn? Come on.

I watched it and the filmmaker gives both sides of the argument, something Michael Moore will never do because he knows he'd be made to look like a fool and the illusion he's created around himself would vanish.

Both sides of the argument? Care to present an example of the left side of the argument being presented by D'Souza? Moore's Capitalism: A Love Story was actually critical about Obama - something Fox Entertainment will never admit. Why We Fight explained that both political parties in the U.S. are beholden to the MIC. Republican commentators are all over No End in Sight. Claiming a movie made by a man who believes Obama is not an American citizen presents "both sides of the argument" is like claiming Fox Entertainment is truly "fair and balanced."

That's the mark of a good man and a good argument. Is the person willing to engage with his detractors and give them their say. This filmmaker did and continues to willingly debate those who disagree with him. Biased men from the other side (Redford, Moore, Penn) will not engage with their detractors. Moore will sometimes, but most often he goes to Maher and MSNBC and other "safe" venues. They don't have a strong argument which is why you'll never see them face an opponent.

You claim that people like Redford, Moore, Penn only appear on Maher and MSNBC, but I only see people like D'Souza, Sarah Palin, Ted Nugent, Ann Coulter on Fox Entertainment, their safe haven. They know God damn well they would be laughed and boo-ed off stage on any other venue for being the anti American plutocracy and theocracy craving propagandists they are.

Their lies about America are based on extreme manipulation and omission of facts.

Again I cite Fox Entertainment.....you want extreme manipulation and omission of facts? Look no further than the "news" network that sued for its right to lie to American viewers.

I challenge anyone to try me on this, all I ask is that you bring an open mind and save the insults (the liberals' favorite weapon).

Insults? Coming from the side that calls that uses terms like "libtards," you know something about insults.

Bottom line: Don't believe me. Don't believe anyone. See it and trust your own intelligence and common sense.

The left was saying the same thing about the documentaries I mentioned earlier in the post. Did you people on the right take our advice? Nope. So why should we listen to you?

Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From

[–] SPOOKY-70 10 years ago

If it were praising Communism and our Communist President you wouldn't lift a finger to even comment, HYPOCRITE. I will see to it all 16 of my grand kids will watch it and there isn't a thing you can do about that or parental rights to educate at home.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Katz5 10 years ago

Communist? LMFAO. ODS runs deep with the Birther crowd.

If Obama is a Commie, Joe McCarthy wannabe, you would not be able to use the Internet and trash him every day. Fox Entertainment would be shut down. As would CNN and the rest of the rightwing media.

16 Grandkids? Let me guess - a Bundy sympathizer?

Shut off Fox Entertainment.

Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] IMDb-Rot_in_Hell 9 years ago

Go join the butthurt and hatred-ridden europeans you moron and stop rambling about Fox news like a conspiracy douche.

[–] emncaity 8 years ago

So this is your idea of the kind of tolerant, reasonable discourse that emanates like a crystal fountain from the mouths of dedicated leftists?

In projecting so many assumptions onto somebody simply because of the positions they hold (she must teach at Liberty University; she's a McCarthy wannabe; she's a Bundy sympathizer; she's in the "birther crowd"; etc.), you have shown yourself to be at least as prejudiced, ignorant, and inclined to broad-brush painting as any of the people you criticize, as unable to get past your own "side" and talk decently to a human being as anybody you target on the other "side."

So, yeah. Nice.

[–] donotdisturbx9 9 years ago

I bet your 16 grand kids are mentally challenged by now if they continued listening to you. On the other hand, they are probably smarter than that and moved on from your nonsense.

[–] Mr_Toastee 10 years ago

Bravo!! You just showed yourself as someone who didn't watch the movie, he actually does present both sides...try to at least watch the movie before you are critical of it.

Omission of facts, actually he brings up historical facts no longer taught, because it doesn't fit the left's narrative. If you want to look up omission, look up your side first.

ann c goes to places like good morning America and such... so you prove once again you do not know what you are talking about. D'Souza showed clips of him debating bill ayers on stage..

Until Ayers came on Fox last week, he never stepped anyplace else but his safety nets of anything liberal.

maybe you should watch it, it may open your eyes?

[–] Katz5 10 years ago

D'Souza is a freaking Birther. All I need to know.

And you Cons visit the Michael Moore boards trashing his documentaries without watching them, so who's the hypocrite again?

This movie tanked - not even in the Top 10. Shall we compare receipts of this flick and An Inconvenient Truth? Sicko? Bowling for Columbine?

Birther regressives who try to mold American history into their warped "what if" views are the ones holding the country back. Guns, war, forced religion, elimination of agencies that protect our environment, our food supply, worker rights, citizen rights (in other words, JudeoChristian Oligarchy) is what you people crave. And because of Dem apathy, the Tealiban will most likely take the Senate and keep the House in Congress. You want fascism? It's coming soon to a city near you.

Yes, Ayers appeared on Fox Entertainment and once again proved what a bunch of horses--t the "network that sued for its right to mislead viewer" slings around every day. And when can we expect Caribou Barbie or Ted "Soiled Himself" Nugent on MSNBC or Bill Moyers?

Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From

[–] wintermonk 10 years ago

"D'Souza is a freaking Birther. All I need to know. "

If you're an intellectual coward or in need of a logic class.

That's known as Ad Hominem. If D'Souza said "eating vegetables is good for you," should I say, "That can't be true because D'Souza is an idiot birther, so obviously eating vegetables is terrible for you."

Refute what you disagree with. Truth is NEVER invalidated by the mouth that utters it. Even Hitler believed two plus two makes four.

"Birther regressives who try to mold American history into their warped "what if" views are the ones holding the country back. Guns, war, forced religion, elimination of agencies that protect our environment, our food supply, worker rights, citizen rights (in other words, JudeoChristian Oligarchy) is what you people crave. And because of Dem apathy, the Tealiban will most likely take the Senate and keep the House in Congress. You want fascism? It's coming soon to a city near you. "

Wow, a list of strawmen and hyperbole.

Most people support the second ammdenment AND even support some gun control laws (background checks, no fully auto-weapons, etc.)

What about war?

Force religion? That's hogwash. You can cut your toenails and worship your toenail trimmings and no one will bother you. Atheists are completely and in all ways free to be atheists without any force and persecution. If you disagree, give me some examples of "forced religion." If you refer to religious people attempting to convert others, that is legitimate persuasive speech protected by the first amendment. You are free to try and persuade people there is no God, or that Zeus is god, or that you are god and it is a sin to wear green on Thursdays. This "forced religion" whining is ever the complaints of people who can't stand to hear someone say "Jesus" in public and equate that with some Arab in Saudi Arabia putting a scimitar to someone's throat and saying "convert or die."

Can you give examples of cons who want to abolish the EPA, FDA, workers rights, citizen rights? I think you are guilty of massive slippery slope fallacy here! Some con says, "I don't think the EPA should be able to do such-and-such", and you leap to the conclusions of, "Oh, you hate the environment and want to abolish the EPA!"

Can you explain how people who would like lower taxation, a simple tax code (instead of the labyrinthian thing we currently have), and more responsible government spending are in any way like the Taliban? Or have you simply projected undesirable characteristics onto a people with whom you disagree and you've come to believe your own caricatures of them?

I'm no tea partier, by any stretch of the imagination, but I am amazed at how they are portrayed, and even more amazed that people believe these ridiculous portrayals. The Taliban? Really?

If anyone told me that a group of people who cause no problems in society, pay their taxes, obey the laws, are not violent, that such a group of people are horrible and like the Taliban, my first instinct would be extreme skepticism. And great suspicion toward those who obviously want me to hate a certain group of people and are just trying to manipulate me. If you want me to disagree with the position of the tea partiers (or any group of people), then show me with logic and evidence why their positions are wrong; don't try to get me to hate them. There's enough hate in the world already.

[–] mball1297 10 years ago

If you're an intellectual coward or in need of a logic class.

That's known as Ad Hominem. If D'Souza said "eating vegetables is good for you," should I say, "That can't be true because D'Souza is an idiot birther, so obviously eating vegetables is terrible for you."

Refute what you disagree with. Truth is NEVER invalidated by the mouth that utters it. Even Hitler believed two plus two makes four.

There are times when pointing to a person's position on another subject in order to discredit their position on the current one is a fallacy. This isn't one of them. Pointing out that someone is a birther illustrates that the person is so biased that they lose credibility on any topic involving politics. Being a birther requires a huge bias and a willful ignorance that's beyond the norm. It's highly likely that someone like that will have a similarly huge bias regarding other political topics.

[–] wintermonk 10 years ago

"There are times when pointing to a person's position on another subject in order to discredit their position on the current one is a fallacy. This isn't one of them. Pointing out that someone is a birther illustrates that the person is so biased that they lose credibility on any topic involving politics. Being a birther requires a huge bias and a willful ignorance that's beyond the norm. It's highly likely that someone like that will have a similarly huge bias regarding other political topics."

Hmmm...I'm not sure where this is written. I certainly wasn't aware that in a debate it's okay to use ad hominems if certain positions are extreme. One could use your excuse about anything: "Well, sir, your position on such-and-such is such a way out there position that you obviously are incapable of objectivity and therefore my ad hominems are perfectly okay."

And pointing out that somebody has an positions that is "extreme" and shared by very few people is also fallacious; it's just middle-ground fallacy.

Finally, if someone is a crackpot, it shouldn't be hard to refute them. Do that instead. Not demand that I accept your ad hominems based on someone's ridiculous position.

[–] mball1297 10 years ago

Hmmm...I'm not sure where this is written. I certainly wasn't aware that in a debate it's okay to use ad hominems if certain positions are extreme. One could use your excuse about anything: "Well, sir, your position on such-and-such is such a way out there position that you obviously are incapable of objectivity and therefore my ad hominems are perfectly okay."

And pointing out that somebody has an positions that is "extreme" and shared by very few people is also fallacious; it's just middle-ground fallacy.

Finally, if someone is a crackpot, it shouldn't be hard to refute them. Do that instead. Not demand that I accept your ad hominems based on someone's ridiculous position.

You missed the point. We're talking about politics. If someone has an extremely biased position on one issue in politics, a position that requires them to be irrationally invested in one side, it's fair to point that out when talking about their comments on other aspects of politics.

Also, it's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be "D'Souza cheated on his wife". This is simply saying "He's irrationally conservative regarding politics, evidenced by the fact that he's a birther".

[–] IAM4UK-2 10 years ago

Modern "liberals" are in large percentage leftists. Leftism opposes the principles on which America is founded; specifically but not limited to: strictly-limited central government authority, the right to self-governance, and the responsibilities attendant thereto.
Therefore, as this movie reputedly (haven't watched yet) champions the foundational principle of America, leftists are bound to oppose it.

[–] Citizen56 10 years ago

You missed the point. We're talking about politics. If someone has an extremely biased position on one issue in politics, a position that requires them to be irrationally invested in one side, it's fair to point that out when talking about their comments on other aspects of politics.

Also, it's not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be "D'Souza cheated on his wife". This is simply saying "He's irrationally conservative regarding politics, evidenced by the fact that he's a birther".

No, you missed the point. You are attacking the author instead of attacking the argument. Whether the person making the claim is sane, insane or whatever is irrelevant to the content of the argument. Also, based upon your example it is painfully obvious that you do not even understand what an ad hominem attack is.

It always puzzles me why liberals always think they have some sort of monopoly on logic and common sense when most of their arguments and rebuttals are rooted in pathos.

[–] mball1297 10 years ago

No, you missed the point. You are attacking the author instead of attacking the argument. Whether the person making the claim is sane, insane or whatever is irrelevant to the content of the argument. Also, based upon your example it is painfully obvious that you do not even understand what an ad hominem attack is.

It always puzzles me why liberals always think they have some sort of monopoly on logic and common sense when most of their arguments and rebuttals are rooted in pathos.

I'll try again, but I'll also ask that you take a minute to actually try to comprehend, rather than just spewing another response that misses the point.

Clearly I understand what an ad hominem is. If you want to try to refuse to see it, it's not my problem.

So, once again, pointing out that a person is so biased on a particular subject that they believe something incredibly irrational due to that bias is perfectly relevant when discussing a different argument from that person on the same subject. If person A is biased and irrational enough to believe X about politics, then it's a good bet that same bias and irrationality are influencing their other beliefs/arguments about politics. It's not a hard concept to comprehend.

For instance, calling him a convicted felon is an ad hominem and not a good argument against this film. Whether or not he's a convicted felon says nothing about his political beliefs or how he'd approach making a movie like this. But being a felon isn't about political beliefs, but being a birther is.

[–] spiritascent 10 years ago

Don't worry, mball, some of actually understand what you're talking about.

If I were to claim that the moon was made of cheese, would any sane person want my opinion on the lunar landing? Or on engineering a new rover to land on the moon?

[–] Citizen56 10 years ago

Seeing as how you don't understand what an ad hominem attack is I doubt anyone would want your opinion when it comes to anything dealing with logical arguments.

[–] Citizen56 10 years ago

You are still missing the point. Anytime you attack an assertion by appealing to some perceived weakness or bias against the author instead of addressing the actual argument you are making an ad hominem attack. Normally, I wouldn't tell someone to use wikipedia to educate themselves but in your case it probably couldn't hurt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

[–] wintermonk 10 years ago

"If someone has an extremely biased position on one issue in politics, a position that requires them to be irrationally invested in one side, it's fair to point that out when talking about their comments on other aspects of politics."

But then anyone could claim that any position is an "extremely biased position" so as to avoid doing the work of refuting other positions.

And, yes, it is an ad hominem to point out he is a birther when attacking the points he tries to make in his films. If he is trying to defend America against attacks about how bad it is because of atrocities committed against Native Americans, then the birther issue is entirely irrelevant.

I would just like a logical argument that refutes one of D'Souza's points he has made in his films. Maybe he's a birther. I find the idea of trying to spend our way out of debt every bit as ridiculous as being a birther. I still do my best to refute things I disagree with using logical reasons and facts. To do otherwise is a waste of time an convinces no one of anything.

[–] mball1297 10 years ago

But then anyone could claim that any position is an "extremely biased position" so as to avoid doing the work of refuting other positions.

Sure. Anyone can claim anything they want. That doesn't mean their claim would be valid, though.

And, yes, it is an ad hominem to point out he is a birther when attacking the points he tries to make in his films. If he is trying to defend America against attacks about how bad it is because of atrocities committed against Native Americans, then the birther issue is entirely irrelevant.

The birther issue isn't irrelevant. Again, it's a sign of how incredibly biased he is. It gives you an indication of how he approaches everything political.

I would just like a logical argument that refutes one of D'Souza's points he has made in his films.

Well, you can check this out:

http://www.avclub.com/review/director-2016-obamas-america-it-again-america-206466

Or check out almost all of the reviews on Rottentomatoes. Basically the idea is D'Souza's points are strawmen and all of his arguments are based on inaccurate premises.

I find the idea of trying to spend our way out of debt every bit as ridiculous as being a birther.

I only hope you're kidding.

I still do my best to refute things I disagree with using logical reasons and facts. To do otherwise is a waste of time an convinces no one of anything.

Sure. Ideally that's how you do it. All I'm saying is it's reasonable to point out that he's a birther in reference to his other views regarding politics.

[–] Katz5 10 years ago

I stand by what I wrote. D'Souza is a Birther. So I treat anything he produces the same as I would treat something Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, or Ann Coulter produces. Paranoid delusional fantasy.

As for the rest of your retort...........

Most people support the second ammdenment AND even support some gun control laws (background checks, no fully auto-weapons, etc.)

Gun control laws? Background checks? Don't make me laugh. Those idiots in Texas and South Carolina walking around retail stores with automatic weapons strapped to them to the Bundy supporters......yeah sure, they believe in background checks.

What about war?

War and guns. The mantra of the Tea Party. And you ask "what about war." Check Paul Ryan's budget out...Mr. "We Are Overspending." He wanted MORE in the defense and military budget. Bomb Iran. Bomb Syria. Re-bomb Iraq. "What about war." What planet are you living on?

If you disagree, give me some examples of "forced religion." If you refer to religious people attempting to convert others, that is legitimate persuasive speech protected by the first amendment. You are free to try and persuade people there is no God, or that Zeus is god, or that you are god and it is a sin to wear green on Thursdays. This "forced religion" whining is ever the complaints of people who can't stand to hear someone say "Jesus" in public and equate that with some Arab in Saudi Arabia putting a scimitar to someone's throat and saying "convert or die."

Forced religion.......Pushing for mandatory prayer in public schools. Foaming at the mouth of Roe Vs. Wade to the point of pushing for an overturning. Yearning to control a woman's body. THAT forced religion.

Can you give examples of cons who want to abolish the EPA, FDA, workers rights, citizen rights? I think you are guilty of massive slippery slope fallacy here! Some con says, "I don't think the EPA should be able to do such-and-such", and you leap to the conclusions of, "Oh, you hate the environment and want to abolish the EPA!"

The fundamental objective of the Koch Brothers and Karl Rove's groups is to eliminate the EPA, the FDA, OSHA, the DOE....deregulate. And leave the environment, the food supply, and worker's rights to the plutocracy craving corporations.

Can you explain how people who would like lower taxation, a simple tax code (instead of the labyrinthian thing we currently have), and more responsible government spending are in any way like the Taliban? Or have you simply projected undesirable characteristics onto a people with whom you disagree and you've come to believe your own caricatures of them?

Lower taxation for the top 2% means higher taxes for the middle and lower classes. Someone has to pay for war and defense spending that the Ryan budget quadruples. And it won't be the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson or Donald Trump.

I'm no tea partier, by any stretch of the imagination, but I am amazed at how they are portrayed, and even more amazed that people believe these ridiculous portrayals. The Taliban? Really?

When you have Tea Party fanatics paying extra to install smokestacks to spew as much black carbon in the air from their trucks as possible, to "get back" at the "unholy" EPA and President Obama, you have a terrorist mentality. When you have gun whackos insisting on showing off their weapons in family retail outlets like Target, you have a terrorist mentality. When you have people making comments like "God gave humans dominion over the planet...he said 'take it, rape it, it's your's'," you have a terrorist mentality. When you have Hummers sporting Gadsden flags vandalizing fuel efficient vehicles like the Toyota Prius, you have a terrorist mentality. The term Tealiban fits. As does Y'all Qaeda.

If you want me to disagree with the position of the tea partiers (or any group of people), then show me with logic and evidence why their positions are wrong; don't try to get me to hate them. There's enough hate in the world already.

Listen to yourself here. "There's enough hate in the world already." Where was this Tea Party anger when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney invaded a Sovereign nation based on fabricated Intel....a war that cost thousands of U.S. troops their lives and countless more maimed. BushCheneyCorp and their Neocons outlawed photography of caskets returning home from Iraq at Dover AFB. The troops were pawns to them. The Tea Party was silent. People like Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter and Limbaugh were calling any American who spoke out against the war or BushCheneyCorp "traitors" and "with the terrorists." These same people went apes--t crazy when Obama was elected and re-elected in 2008 and 2012, calling the man every name under the sun, because Americans refused to elect a half-senile, angry and disingenuous old man and a quitting, creationist, faux Christian bimbo in high heels, and then a 2 percenter who alienated more than half the U.S. population (Mr. 47%) and Dick Cheney Jr., who promised more needless wars and tax cuts for the richest Americans (and tax hikes for everyone else).

"Hate?" Look no further than the foaming at the mouth of the Birther Movement, of which the men behind this movie are part of, using every conspiracy in the books after a half African American man entered the Oval Office.

Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From

[–] wintermonk 10 years ago

"Gun control laws? Background checks? Don't make me laugh. Those idiots in Texas and South Carolina walking around retail stores with automatic weapons strapped to them to the Bundy supporters......yeah sure, they believe in background checks. "

People are not walking around Texas and SC with automatic weapons. Semi-auto weapons are much different. Do you have stats on the amount of NRA people who support background checks? Or are you just spouting of baseless nonsense? Give me some facts and stats.

"Forced religion.......Pushing for mandatory prayer in public schools. Foaming at the mouth of Roe Vs. Wade to the point of pushing for an overturning. Yearning to control a woman's body. THAT forced religion. "

Who is pushing for mandatory prayer in schools? Sources?

Foaming at the mouth? Even IF someone was foaming at the mouth about the Roe Vs. Wade law, how does that force you to be religious. Abortion was illegal for most of our nation's history, so how does being against abortion force other people to be religious. There are atheists that are against abortion, so sorry, you can't associate being against abortion with forcing religion on people. Gay marriage is illegal in China. You think that has anything to do with religion? Is the Chinese government forcing its citizens to be religious?

Yearning to "control a woman's body". Rhetorical nonsense. Laws control behavior. Welcome to civilization.

"The fundamental objective of the Koch Brothers and Karl Rove's groups is to eliminate the EPA, the FDA, OSHA, the DOE....deregulate. And leave the environment, the food supply, and worker's rights to the plutocracy craving corporations. "

Really? Got some evidence for these accusations? I can't believe (well, that's not true) that you actually buy these wild caricatures you've been fed.

"When you have Tea Party fanatics paying extra to install smokestacks to spew as much black carbon in the air from their trucks as possible, to "get back" at the "unholy" EPA and President Obama"

Sources? And are these a significant percentage of tea partiers that are doing this? I could just as easily say that these are men doing this, therefore all men want to "spew as much black carbon in the air from their trucks as possible." Is this a tea party position or are you giving me a dash of hasty generalization fallacy and some fallacy of misleading vividness? I could come up with examples of democrats doing stupid things (Anthony Weiner or Jonathan Edwards)--do those reflect democrats? Actually, no. Their behavior doesn't reflect the POSITION of democrats, so pointing out the bad behavior of a couple of democrats in an attempt to attack the democrat party is just dishonest ad hominem attacks. But you are doing this as an attack on the tea party.

"When you have gun whackos insisting on showing off their weapons in family retail outlets like Target, you have a terrorist mentality. When you have people making comments like "God gave humans dominion over the planet...he said 'take it, rape it, it's your's'," you have a terrorist mentality. When you have Hummers sporting Gadsden flags vandalizing fuel efficient vehicles like the Toyota Prius, you have a terrorist mentality. The term Tealiban fits. As does Y'all Qaeda."

If so, then to whatever organizations/associations you belong, I will take any and all bad things committed by any and all members of such organizations and say "These are the official positions, condoned by all the organizations to which you belong and characteristic of you and all people who also belong to those organization." Well, I could do that, but I know that would be dishonest. I will stick to refuting the official positions of groups with whom I disagree. Not cherry pick bad behavior from a few members. But you can be dishonest if you wish. You only fool yourself.

But I doubt you fool yourself. You know very well know that the vast majority of the tea partiers are harmless tax paying citizens, and that the tea party's POSITIONS are only about lower taxes and more responsible government. Your attacks are dishonest. You are desperate to hate a group of people that you disagree with. You are adding to the hate that is in the world.

"Where was this Tea Party anger when George W. Bush and Dick Cheney invaded a Sovereign nation based on fabricated Intel..."

Um...the tea party is not the We-Are-Against-Everything-Wrong-In-The-World party. Hmmm? Maybe you haven't noticed, but they are a group of people that are about taxes and government spending. There are plenty of anti-war groups out there. The Tea Party isn't one of them. The NRA is a an organization that lobbies for gun rights. They don't get involved in environmental laws, good or bad, because that is not what they are about. You understand this concept right--the idea that some groups are created to address one specific issue or problem in the world?

Code Pink is an anti-war group. People don't expect Code Pink to be out fighting against bad tax loopholes. That's not what they are about.

"People like Hannity, O'Reilly, Coulter and Limbaugh were calling any American who spoke out against the war or BushCheneyCorp "traitors" and "with the terrorists."

Those are their opinions. You are free to disagree and refute.

" These same people went apes--t crazy when Obama was elected and re-elected in 2008 and 2012, calling the man every name under the sun, because Americans refused to elect a half-senile, angry and disingenuous old man and a quitting, creationist, faux Christian bimbo in high heels, and then a 2 percenter who alienated more than half the U.S. population (Mr. 47%) and Dick Cheney Jr., who promised more needless wars and tax cuts for the richest Americans (and tax hikes for everyone else). "

I think you're the one going apes--t crazy, and need to have a Coke and smile. You write very emotionally and full of rhetoric. Need to exercise a little bit of thoughtful self-skepticism.

I'm always amazed at some people's ability to see the world in terms of superheroes and super-villains. Maybe Hollywood has made too many superhero movies or something. Because some people seem prone to see everyone as a heart-of-gold saint who wouldn't harm a fly or a diabolical hellspawn that delights in making money off the suffering of others.

""Hate?" Look no further than the foaming at the mouth of the Birther Movement, of which the men behind this movie are part of, using every conspiracy in the books after a half African American man entered the Oval Office."

Again with the foaming at the mouth. I don't see any birthers foaming at the mouth. But it's not hard for me, reading your posts, to imagine you doing so. Perhaps you're projecting your hate, vitriol, and emotion-induced rants on your ideological opponents. I don't know.

[–] Katz5 10 years ago

The point is, D'Souza continues to insist that the current President is a non American. You support the documentary and viewpoints of a Birther. I still have not heard any evidence that this documentary is "balanced." Perhaps it's "balanced" as Fox "News" is "balanced."

I will respond to one aspect of your above post. The Tea Party is preventing the country from moving forward. The Tea Party was behind Citizens United - the worst ruling in Supreme Court history that takes the United States closer to an oligarchy. If it were up to the Tea Party, democracy would be eliminated in the U.S. and a bastard mix of plutocracy and theocracy would be installed. Corporations currently have more rights than American citizens.

You know very well know that the vast majority of the tea partiers are harmless tax paying citizens, and that the tea party's POSITIONS are only about lower taxes and more responsible government.

Countless times I've asked where this Tea Party anger was when Bush and Cheney were in office. A trillion dollar war based on manipulated Intel that proved to be absolutely needless and turned Iraq into the dangerous stew it is now, and made Iran more of a threat. Thousands of U.S. troops gone. For nothing. And Cheney's response? "So?" Who paid for the war? Paul Ryan's budget calls for huge increases in military and defense - who pays for that?

And don't kid yourself - I don't know what sources you rely on for information, but the underlying mission of the Koch Brothers and their Tea Party minions is to eliminate all "obstructions" to the "free market," and that includes the EPA, FDA, DOE, OSHA and other agencies which were created to protect our environment, our food supply, research and develop clean energy programs, and worker's rights. The Koch Brothers are behind penalties against Americans who rely on solar and wind power energy.

"Harmless tax paying citizens are only about lower taxes and more responsible Government." Yet you were silent during Bush and Cheney's rule. Maybe had BushCheney raised taxes to pay for their trillion dollar Rambo games instead of max out the Bank of China card, you would have been more angry. But you bleat about "more responsible Government" when I keep giving you examples of the previous administration's follies. And you respond with crickets. Keep on believing the Birther lies. Because of Dem voting apathy, the Tea Party nation hijackers will most likely take over the U.S. Senate and keep the House. We're getting an idea of corporate fascism now and just wait until the plutocrats are in total majority in Congress. Meanwhile the "liberal" MSM keeps turning a blind eye.

Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From

[–] wintermonk 10 years ago

"The point is, D'Souza continues to insist that the current President is a non American. You support the documentary and viewpoints of a Birther. I still have not heard any evidence that this documentary is "balanced." Perhaps it's "balanced" as Fox "News" is "balanced.""

Well, I am neither for or against the points made in his films because I haven't seen either one. I know very little about the birther issue and find it extremely unlikely that someone not born in the USA could run for president, so I haven't look into that issue nor do I care about it. I won't comment on things that I don't know enough about.

" The Tea Party is preventing the country from moving forward. The Tea Party was behind Citizens United - the worst ruling in Supreme Court history that takes the United States closer to an oligarchy. If it were up to the Tea Party, democracy would be eliminated in the U.S. and a bastard mix of plutocracy and theocracy would be installed.

Actually, the tea party seems to want lower taxes and less government spending. Such would reduce the power of government. It seems a bit contradictory that lot of liberals worry about government control while complaining about the tea party when it is con groups that would like less federal government power and more power to the states and people. Liberals throw around words like "fascist" yet they are the ones eager to give as much power to the federal government as possible.

And if you think the Citizens United ruling was so bad, then state why it was so bad. Make you case. Don't ASSUME it's bad, demand that I accept your assumption, and then try to pass off your assumption as evidence of something.

"Countless times I've asked where this Tea Party anger was when Bush and Cheney were in office. A trillion dollar war based on manipulated Intel that proved to be absolutely needless and turned Iraq into the dangerous stew it is now, and made Iran more of a threat."

That's certainly a fair criticism--Bush was an over-spender, but the Tea Party didn't arrive until Obama. However, Bush's deficits were, on average, much smaller than Obama's, and the debt during Bush was far more manageable. So you have one president who is overspending while we had a big debt. Some people grumble a little. Then you have a massive deficit for two years (right around the Bush/Obama transition) because of TARP and stimulus spending, and the deficit skyrockets to over a trillion. That is going to make some people angry. Heck, even Michael Moore was ticked about the bank bailouts. And since then, the deficit has come down, but it's still much higher than before the TARP and Stimulus years, and we are less able to handle such a big deficit because our debt is much higher since then, meaning we are paying more on interest to service our debt.

So, some debt is fine. Most of us have it. But the higher the debt gets, the more important it is to get rid of a deficit. Sorry, but Obama added much more to the debt in less time than Bush did. Hence, the angrier reaction to Obama could be considered entirely consistent. If the next president has even higher deficits, I would expect even an angrier tea party, and for its numbers to swell. If we end up with a republican next and the deficits continue unabated, and the tea party suddenly becomes silent, I would call that hypocrisy.

" I don't know what sources you rely on for information, but the underlying mission of the Koch Brothers and their Tea Party minions is to eliminate all "obstructions" to the "free market," and that includes the EPA, FDA, DOE, OSHA and other agencies which were created to protect our environment, our food supply, research and develop clean energy programs, and worker's rights. The Koch Brothers are behind penalties against Americans who rely on solar and wind power energy."

I don't need sources. You're the one making the accusations. The burden of proof is on you. And I'm still waiting for all the evidence to back up your accusations.

Most people in the country are for a mixed economy that leans toward a free market. But very, very few people want a complete laissez faire economy. I have noticed that sometimes people assume those to the right of them are further to the right than the actually are, just as some people on the right assume those on the left are further on the left than they are, like people who call Obama a socialist. He's not a socialist. But he is further to the left on a line with pure socialism all the way on the left and pure capitalism all the way on the right. I suspect the Koch Brothers are to the right of you on the line, perhaps by a lot, but you are assuming they are all the way at complete and unfettered free markets with absolutely no government oversight whatsoever. I think that is highly unlikely--I would certainly like a quote by them where they say as much. And I give no credibility to "Well, they don't see it, but that's what they want. I know" Unless you are a mind-reader, you don't know. And even if the Koch Brothers are; most tea partiers, I'm sure, or not, because you'd be hard-pressed to find people who want absolutely no government involvement in the economy whatsoever. It's slippery slope fallacy to assume people who want less government involvement want none at all.

" Yet you were silent during Bush and Cheney's rule. "

Well, I'm not really a Bush fan either nor am I a tea partier. That said, I've already pointed out that under Obama much more has been added to the debt in less time. I don't want to get into a debate concerning the war, whether it was justified or not, because that is an entirely different philosophical debate and not really relevant when it comes to whether the tea party is trying to institute some kind of plutocracy. (I tend to support the fight in Afghanistan but not the war in Iraq, but even then I wasn't in Bush's or Obama's meetings in the Oval Office, listening to intelligence reports, so I think my evaluation of their decisions is akin to someone sitting at home watching a football game thinking he could coach one of the football teams better than coach).

[–] Katz5 10 years ago

First off, thank you for being civil during this debate. Some of your opinions I actually agree with, such as Iraq being a boondoggle and the war in Afghanistan being relatively more justifiable. Admittedly some of my anger on this thread is directed at the radical Tea Party right - I have quite a bit of experience with dealing with them as I have several distant relatives in Texas and Missouri who preach the Gospel According to Hannity and Coulter and Limbaugh and actually believe Sarah Palin would make a great President. I wish I could say they were joking, but they're dead serious.

And living in a purple state (Virginia), I am surrounded by Tea Party sheeple with their DMV-issued Gadsden flag license plates (always on gas guzzling Hummers or rusty old black carbon spewing pick up trucks) customized to read things like "LBRLS SUK" and "NMR TXES." You sound like a more level headed Conservative.

But I suspect you haven't seen some of the footage of the aforementioned radical right media commentators regarding Obama. D'Souza believes Obama is not a U.S. citizen. Therefore his film should be labeled "fiction" (as "what film" films like Elysium were) vs. documentary. Had the film concentrated on the "what if" basis (what if the British won? What if Hitler had acquired an atomic bomb? Etc.), it would have been somewhat interesting. But he couldn't hold back - bringing Obama and Hillary into the picture as detrimental to the American way gives this "documentary" as much credibility as Fahrenheit 9/11, which had some moments Moore could not have altered but was as a whole blatantly false.

You ask for sources indicating that D'Souza is a Birther...Google is your friend. But I'll help out:

http://nation.foxnews.com/dinesh-dsouza/2012/09/26/dsouza-theres-somet hing-about-obama-thats-not-homegrown

Actually, the tea party seems to want lower taxes and less government spending. Such would reduce the power of government. It seems a bit contradictory that lot of liberals worry about government control while complaining about the tea party when it is con groups that would like less federal government power and more power to the states and people. Liberals throw around words like "fascist" yet they are the ones eager to give as much power to the federal government as possible.

An overstuffed Government is not what level headed liberals want. All we want is regulation to control unchecked capitalism. That's it. Absolute deregulation, a Reaganite dream, is recipe for disaster. Corporations have been analyzed as having the same characteristics of psychopaths. The bottom line is money. Keeping the stockholders happy. At all costs. Where does protecting the environment, our water supply, our air, our National Parks, our food supply, working class rights, fit in? Expendable. That's where. It's not the Dems who are trying to eliminate the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.

And if you think the Citizens United ruling was so bad, then state why it was so bad. Make you case. Don't ASSUME it's bad, demand that I accept your assumption, and then try to pass off your assumption as evidence of something.

You honestly feel that undisclosed millions from PAC groups, Think Tanks, and corporate groups poured into the coffers of politicians doesn't distort the democratic process a bit? EVERY DAY I get emails from Dem groups asking for money....$5 here, $20 there. I donate as much as I can. This is to combat the millions (bordering billions) poured into the accounts of Republican politicians by undisclosed sources. I think you and I both know where these undisclosed sources are originating: Kansas and Las Vegas, for starters.

Cons blather on about unions giving money to politicians. I'm against that too. Many Unions have gotten out of control in this country but remember why unions were created - to prevent employee exploitation and demand a living wage so the middle class can thrive in the face of rampant inflation.

That's certainly a fair criticism--Bush was an over-spender, but the Tea Party didn't arrive until Obama. However, Bush's deficits were, on average, much smaller than Obama's, and the debt during Bush was far more manageable. So you have one president who is overspending while we had a big debt. Some people grumble a little. Then you have a massive deficit for two years (right around the Bush/Obama transition) because of TARP and stimulus spending, and the deficit skyrockets to over a trillion. That is going to make some people angry. Heck, even Michael Moore was ticked about the bank bailouts.

Bush and Cheney were trillion dollar spenders. The problem is, they didn't finance their Iraq follies by raising taxes. Had they threatened that, we would have never gone into Iraq. Instead they borrowed from China so we're indebted to that country for decades to come. I have a friend who believes in about 20 years the Chinese will come after this debt and pretty much repeat what was predicted in Red Dawn - instead of Russians (in the original) or North Koreans (in the remake), it will be the Chinese. He's actually learning Chinese to prepare for this. As for the bailouts, the banks were going to survive, by hook or crook. Bail the banks out, or allow the banks to seize the 401K accounts of millions of Americans?

Most people in the country are for a mixed economy that leans toward a free market. But very, very few people want a complete laissez faire economy.

I certainly hope you're right. But from what I've seen and heard, not only in the media but from everyday Americans, Government is the absolute enemy and must be eliminated. The Government shut down last fall - people are still blaming Obama for that. Sarah Palin's "impeach Obama!" blurb on her FB page had over 9 million "likes." When you have this kind of mentality, I don't know whether to be amused, saddened, or frightened.

When I encounter someone who says the things Palin drones on about, and I ask for examples on Obama's policy and why he deserves impeachment, I get responses like "well, I can't really name anything off the top of my head...maybe Benghazi...and oh yeah, the IRS." I mention the number of Embassies attacked when Bush was in office. I mention the warnings issued in the months before 9/11 that were ignored. I mention that liberal groups were targeted by the IRS when Bush was in office. I mention the Patriot Act. They look at me dumbfounded.

I've been critical of Fox News for years and with this level of dangerous brainwashing going on, it seems valid to be critical.

I do believe ObamaCare was the wrong battle for Obama to fight. I and other moderate Dems I know are not very happy with Obama. Some of the promises he made during the primary debates were dropped as soon as he beat Hillary. ObamaCare was the wrong initiative. Getting Americans back to work by backing out of NAFTA, pulling us out of Iraq and Afghanistan sooner, stop bowing down to the Military Industrial Complex, concentrate on our infrastructure, eliminate special interest control on Capitol Hill, ramp up the DOE's clean energy research. I've been accused by friends as having isolationist viewpoints. The U.S. is broken and needs repair. We don't need a Birther like D'Souza telling us "what if Hitler had the atomic bomb." That kind of rhetoric is straight from the paranoid delusional, "Obama is a Muslim," Neocon line of thinking. Which is probably why this movie got made.

Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From

[–] mball1297 10 years ago

That said, I've already pointed out that under Obama much more has been added to the debt in less time.

Sure, going by the years each was in office. However, if you go by their budget's, it's a lot different. Bush took office in 2001, so his first budget/effect on the debt started with the 2001 budget year. Obama's first effect then was in 2009.

National debt at beginning of 2001 fiscal year: $6.2 trillion
National debt at beginning of 2009 fiscal year: $11.9 trillion.

That's $5.7 trillion added. Just in the last 2 years of his budgets, the debt went up $2.9 trillion.

Currently, the national debt is $17.5 trillion. That means it's gone up $5.6 trillion under Obama. Not by much, but it is slightly less than how much it went up under Bush. Then when you take into account the fact that the last couple years under Bush raised it almost $3 trillion, it shows that the amount it's gone up under Obama really isn't that bad, relatively speaking.

[–] nickm2 10 years ago

I tend to support the fight in Afghanistan but not the war in Iraq, but even then I wasn't in Bush's or Obama's meetings in the Oval Office, listening to intelligence reports

Well, Winter, I always got the impression that Iraq was for easily accessible 'flypaper' for the Salafits; much more desirable than committing large numbers of often culturally insensitive ground troops to a country as physically inaccessible & traditionally xenophobic as A'Stan.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] mlarson-33-955912 10 years ago

If someone ascribes to a belief that has been proven to be false (the birthplace of Obama), and said belief has been used in a Republic to dissuade legally elected officials from taking appropriate action (those who don't like Obama want to stop anything he does and use the falsehood about his birthplace to force their representatives to do nothing to aid him), then distrusting the other beliefs and creations of the perpetrator of the belief (in this case, D'Souza) is natural(because perpetuating such a falsehood casts doubt on other 'truths' he might hold forth.) Most everything Mr. D'Souza creates for public consumption comes under the rubric of 'patriotism' and ought to be treated with suspicion as to its intent. What is the intent of D'Souza, and why is this his intention? Who shares this intention? What is the source of his capital for dissemination of his intention? In all cases, conservative or liberal, moderate or extreme, follow the money. Behind the money is the Master of the intention. In most cases, we have a common enemy in that. And that enemy grows more powerful when we are at each others' throats.

[–] alliedcola 10 years ago

Two points I have a problem with:

No forced religion? You do realize, in North America, there are more places of worship than schools/libraries/etc.

Oh, yes, for the most part, there is no one "forcing" religion on anyone, but they don't need to because there is NO CHOICE, because half the time, you're thrown in the front pew long before you even take a seat in the classroom, and then, how many schools in America promote UNBIASED teaching? Yeah, thought so...

And sometimes, my dear, the people that pay taxes, obey law, don't beat their wife every half an hour, are the most evil people imaginable, and they don't cause any problems because they are the ones IN CONTROL OF THEIR SOCIETY.

Think outside the box, abuse, hatred and coercion don't leave evidence, bruises, anything like that, because they are all PSYCHOLOGICAL, their ramifications are not generally perpetrated by the people I have a problem with, but by the people they manipulate and expend, that is their genius, they're shepherds, subtly cutting off our choices and guiding us to a world they control.

You could say I'm a raving, insane little girl, but hey, madness is both culturally relative, and culturally relevant.

There's no kill like OVERKILL. 

[–] darrell4562000 10 years ago

Michael Moore IS trash.
Just because your head comes to a point does not mean your Sharp!!

[–] darrell4562000 10 years ago

WOW! You just described OBAMA....

[–] Stoshie 10 years ago

Thank you, Katz5. I was going to dissect that ridiculous rant myself, but you did a better job that I could have.

[–] livfreeordi 10 years ago

If that silly rant in response to that review was the best rebuttal you could come up with..then you have already lost the argument.

[–] SPOOKY-70 10 years ago

The left hates anything that presents America in a good light. It's they that are on the wrong side of history and have to lie about their agenda to even attempt to compete with our traditions. Once it is released on DVD I plan to send it to everyone I know via my Amazon account and would urge all to do the same.

[–] Katz5 10 years ago

Michael Moore's documentaries
Why We Fight
No End in Sight
Robert Greenwald's documentaries
Inside Job
Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing

Essential documentaries and must see viewing for every American. Unless you prefer the sci fi comedies of Birther D'Souza.

Got 13 Channels of $hit on the TV to Choose From

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Gbslogan 10 years ago

I agree with this assessment. Why do liberals always ignore facts and common sense? Just question things that seem to defy logic. Is our country better off right now? Regardless of your party affiliation, ask yourself if you are proud of the way our government is behaving.......... This review is a waste of time....... People either realize things are bad, don't, or do not care.

[–] goodbyeenemyairship 10 years ago

The core of your argument is sound.

But it will be lost on most people because you single out 'liberal Hollywood' & key players on the 'liberal' side of political discourse.

The moment individuals point to either 'side' as being wrong, it reveals their own biases & implies some agenda at work - makes it impossible to trust that objective reasoning is at work vs empty political rhetoric.

Which is Dinesh's biggest problem.

Even if he were to have made a very balanced & insightful film, he is already too embedded in the conservative movement to be influential to anyone - his audience will be comprised of only those who already buy into the conservative doctrine & follow conservative media.

As long as the political machine continues with this republican/democrat or liberal/conservative dichotomy, we'll never really get anywhere - & that's precisely what the powers that be want - keep us occupied with this petty bickering.

It's another branch of psychological warfare - equally as pervasive & sinister as high consumerism.

[–] emncaity 8 years ago

Yeah, polemic tends to be badly done no matter which side it comes from.

Which is why, if you have a position to support and you're making a film to do it, you have to build a case fact by fact in a way that will convince your strongest critics, as long as they have any inclination toward rational thought and any ability to admit points from the opposite "side" where they're valid. Although finding people in that latter category is getting harder and harder.

[–] mball1297 10 years ago

Ah, yes, "Hollywood is liberal, so of course all the critics hate this movie I agree with". The true mark of an unbiased comment.

Your advice about not blindly believing anyone, but thinking for yourself is a good piece of advice. Sadly, it's almost always the preface to a biased comment, and the conclusions the commenter comes to aren't those of someone approaching the subject in an unbiased way.

I haven't seen this movie, so I can't comment on it directly. I have seen interviews with the director and I know the details of his last movie 2016. He's not a guy who makes unbiased movies that tell you the whole story. He tries to capitalize on all the rage against Obama and liberals. He does a very good job of it, of course, but let's call it what it is.

[–] sommert-507-32566 10 years ago

"I also like how some commentators here attack the filmmaker for being a felon."

Especially when they have given a convicted child rapist an Academy Award. Apparently 13 is perfectly fine as an age of consent as long as it's to an 'artiste'.

What hypocracy?

[–] spiritascent 10 years ago

If you don't blindly believe what people tell you, then why do you care what the critics think?

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]