I Watch Documentaries
Just watched 2016 Obama's America. Wow! Enjoyed it.
SW-User
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
demipuff
I haven't seen it, what is it about? The mess he created?
SW-User
It traces his entire life and you can see his ideology on why he does things. I was blown away. The guy who created the film actually went to court because they thought he was tampering with the elections before 2016. It is a must see.
demipuff
I will check it out then!
MarsToSirius
LOL. The gullible are amusing.
SW-User
What do you mean by gullible?
MarsToSirius
Gullible: easily persuaded. Look it up.
SW-User
I know the definition. The facts that are presented in the film are true. I grew up in Chicago while he was Senator. I am now in Indonesia and heard about Obama's life here. Exactly the same as in the film. So, I can say. based of those two things, he did well presenting facts.
MarsToSirius
D'inesh D'Souza has no credibility in journalism. He's a paid affiliate of Koch Industries, and is famous for producing bullshit films. Yes Obama was a senator from Chicago. How that translates into his construct of American politics is flawed beyond the pale.
SW-User
During my time in Chicago, It was evident who Obama was close with. Obama did have different views as a Senator. He voted against the debt ceiling. He did not support gay marriage. He did not care about immigration. All this changed during his presidency. He is not the same Obama we had in Chicago. Well, many documentaries tend to have a bias but he still did well put facts out there. At least from what I know and experienced about Obama.
demipuff
=/
MarsToSirius
All politicians change course, to adapt to changing times, or to improve their political leanings, etc. You might as well criticize every politician in the book. Despite that, it still is no evidence of Mr. D'Souza's claims in his film. Having an opinion, of someone's else's change of opinion, is still an opinion. Not fact.
And pretending to know someone else's thoughts: what he's likely to do, what he feels, what his emotions are, how he felt throughout his childhood, are arrogant at best. What is he, Miss Cleo the psychic?He uses basic facts of Obama's life to predict what his intentions are. Sorry, he doesn't read minds, he's no psychic. It's all his opinion, theories he creates based on his opinion of Obama. No facts to support anything, and no independent third party experts exist to back up his claims.
I don't support everything Obama does, I'm a registered independent and he is too much of a moderate for my liberal taste. But I don't believe improving your stance on issues is grounds for dismissal. I find it a good thing.
Obama opposing the debt ceiling in 2006 and change of recourse later on, is a step in the right direction.
Not supporting gay marriage before (as ALL politicians did) and changing course to support it later, is a step in the right direction. Not caring about immigration before, and caring about it now and finally, is a step in the right direction. In contrast, the GOP and right wing extremists, which D'Souza is a part of, only go backward into the wrong direction, if not going even more extreme.
If you are against immigration reform, if you oppose gays to have the right to marry who they love, if you oppose keeping our government open so we don't lose billions in tax revenue and further hurt the economy, then by all means support Mr. D'Souza and the GOP crazies.
But don't pass this film off as 100% factual, based on two simple facts of where Obama was born, and where he spent time in Indonesia. That's a supremely low criteria to meet, in order to believe a film in its entirety. All documentaries have at least 1 or 2 easy facts right, so you might as well be gullible to every film you see.
Here's an article that helps to break down a lot of the flaws in that film. It's best to check the credibility of your sources to see if they really did present all the facts to you, because he did not.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1835710
And pretending to know someone else's thoughts: what he's likely to do, what he feels, what his emotions are, how he felt throughout his childhood, are arrogant at best. What is he, Miss Cleo the psychic?He uses basic facts of Obama's life to predict what his intentions are. Sorry, he doesn't read minds, he's no psychic. It's all his opinion, theories he creates based on his opinion of Obama. No facts to support anything, and no independent third party experts exist to back up his claims.
I don't support everything Obama does, I'm a registered independent and he is too much of a moderate for my liberal taste. But I don't believe improving your stance on issues is grounds for dismissal. I find it a good thing.
Obama opposing the debt ceiling in 2006 and change of recourse later on, is a step in the right direction.
Not supporting gay marriage before (as ALL politicians did) and changing course to support it later, is a step in the right direction. Not caring about immigration before, and caring about it now and finally, is a step in the right direction. In contrast, the GOP and right wing extremists, which D'Souza is a part of, only go backward into the wrong direction, if not going even more extreme.
If you are against immigration reform, if you oppose gays to have the right to marry who they love, if you oppose keeping our government open so we don't lose billions in tax revenue and further hurt the economy, then by all means support Mr. D'Souza and the GOP crazies.
But don't pass this film off as 100% factual, based on two simple facts of where Obama was born, and where he spent time in Indonesia. That's a supremely low criteria to meet, in order to believe a film in its entirety. All documentaries have at least 1 or 2 easy facts right, so you might as well be gullible to every film you see.
Here's an article that helps to break down a lot of the flaws in that film. It's best to check the credibility of your sources to see if they really did present all the facts to you, because he did not.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1835710
HugeWheat
lmfao
SW-User
Huffington post is known to have a liberal bias. Let's argue back.
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.
Yes, during the Bush years, debt did accumulate. There where various reasons why. One was the crash of the world trade center which is what first sent shock to the economy, before Bush even started to accumulate debt. Being the president he was, he went to fight in the middle east with bi-partisan support. War cost money.
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.
Which president was not sympathetic to Muslims. Even Reagan was with Muslims.
You link does not mention Obama's cuts to NASA and military among others.
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.
Yes, during the Bush years, debt did accumulate. There where various reasons why. One was the crash of the world trade center which is what first sent shock to the economy, before Bush even started to accumulate debt. Being the president he was, he went to fight in the middle east with bi-partisan support. War cost money.
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.
Which president was not sympathetic to Muslims. Even Reagan was with Muslims.
You link does not mention Obama's cuts to NASA and military among others.
SW-User
Just to add, Obama did spend more. http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2012/sep/05/kelly-ayotte/did-barack-obama-accrue-more-debt-half-time-george/
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/sep/28/ron-johnson/sen-ron-johnson-says-deficits-under-obama-total-53/
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2012/sep/28/ron-johnson/sen-ron-johnson-says-deficits-under-obama-total-53/
http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt
MarsToSirius
Every media source contains bias some way or another. D'Souza is conservative biased. So what? Bias doesn't matter. You don't have to be liberal or conservative to tell the truth. Fact is fact- What matters is you NOT give people false information. The facts stated in the Huffpost article are still true. See for yourself and research the whole thing. If you find anything untrue, feel free to point them out.
9/11 wasn't really the cause of the '08 recession btw. Waging war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, as the target was in another country. But yes you're right- the spending brought on by the war made matters worse for an already crippling economy. The national debt results from a combo of high spending + low revenue.
And yes, I suppose all presidents are sympathetic to Muslims. You missed that they were referring to Muslim "jihadists". So no, Reagan was not sympathetic to Muslim jihadists, nor Obama, or Clinton or Bush, or anyone else for that matter. Who openly endorses jihadism? If you have proof somewhere I'd like to see please.
Aaand of course, Obama spends. Which president didn't spend? Name one that didn't. Even Reagan. It is true spending rose under Obama. Not many people know, that the rate of federal spending rose three times FASTER under the Bush era than obama (Obama 11.2% vs Bush 33%). Starting at Obama's first term. Spending by Fiscal 2009 was estimated at 3.7 trillion- only 5.8% of that is directly attributed to Obama. The rest, were from appropriations and policies already in place when he took office. In other words, the mountain of debt was already sky high by the time he was inaugurated, and CBO estimated it would increase over the years, which it did. Predictably.
Those 3 links you provided, are useless and just further supports my argument. Because it explains exactly what I mention above. Politifact clearly says, the root cause of who is to blame is not all on Obama. Instead, responsibility is on both parties, Bush, and previous Congresses plus Obama combined. Read thoroughly. The only truth about those articles, were the numbers (how much total debt). Simply stating a number doesn't explain what that number entails, and who's responsible for it. Ergo, it is misleading and you are not seeing the FULL PICTURE.
Analysis:
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/obamas-numbers-quarterly-update/
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
By the way, FactCheck.org is a non-partisan, non-profit. No bias.
My point is sometimes government-regardless of who is president- has to make hard monetary sacrifices to fund the services us taxpayers need and would benefit from. So I don't mind if bush spent money on the No Child Left Behind program, or Medicare Part B, or the bank bailout (ok, not a fan of the bank bailout but, still necessary). I don't mind that Obama spent money on the CHIP program, the ACA or the Auto bailout, etc. Each president has a job to do and a country to sustain. Question is, if it helps the country, then why are you so opposed to it? If you oppose spending, then you can explain what specific bill you're opposed to, and what you propose we'd do differently.
All this hooplah about spending this and spending that. Why do you care? How does government over spending negatively affect you, personally? Did you lose a job because of Obama's spending? Were you hurt in any way? Did your house burn down? Got arrested? If you can't come up with a good reason why you're so upset over it, then all this fake anger is pointless.
Without spending, you wouldn't be able to drive down the street. Government pays for traffic lights, they pay for ambulances, schools, public parks. It's our taxpayer dollars going to work. If you enjoy the liberty of driving down the street everyday, then you enjoy government spending. We can't live without it, sorry to burst your bubble.
Obviously, the Huffpost article won't mention your claim of NASA and military cuts. The article was analysis of the film. You're now arguing about cuts, not spending. That's a whole nuther ballgame my friend.
The purpose of that Huffpost article was to prove that D'Souza did not present all the facts to you, as you previously said. Hope that helps you better understand the what is happening in gubment. Learn all the facts. it's why it's safest to be a skeptic.
9/11 wasn't really the cause of the '08 recession btw. Waging war in Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, as the target was in another country. But yes you're right- the spending brought on by the war made matters worse for an already crippling economy. The national debt results from a combo of high spending + low revenue.
And yes, I suppose all presidents are sympathetic to Muslims. You missed that they were referring to Muslim "jihadists". So no, Reagan was not sympathetic to Muslim jihadists, nor Obama, or Clinton or Bush, or anyone else for that matter. Who openly endorses jihadism? If you have proof somewhere I'd like to see please.
Aaand of course, Obama spends. Which president didn't spend? Name one that didn't. Even Reagan. It is true spending rose under Obama. Not many people know, that the rate of federal spending rose three times FASTER under the Bush era than obama (Obama 11.2% vs Bush 33%). Starting at Obama's first term. Spending by Fiscal 2009 was estimated at 3.7 trillion- only 5.8% of that is directly attributed to Obama. The rest, were from appropriations and policies already in place when he took office. In other words, the mountain of debt was already sky high by the time he was inaugurated, and CBO estimated it would increase over the years, which it did. Predictably.
Those 3 links you provided, are useless and just further supports my argument. Because it explains exactly what I mention above. Politifact clearly says, the root cause of who is to blame is not all on Obama. Instead, responsibility is on both parties, Bush, and previous Congresses plus Obama combined. Read thoroughly. The only truth about those articles, were the numbers (how much total debt). Simply stating a number doesn't explain what that number entails, and who's responsible for it. Ergo, it is misleading and you are not seeing the FULL PICTURE.
Analysis:
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/04/obamas-numbers-quarterly-update/
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/
By the way, FactCheck.org is a non-partisan, non-profit. No bias.
My point is sometimes government-regardless of who is president- has to make hard monetary sacrifices to fund the services us taxpayers need and would benefit from. So I don't mind if bush spent money on the No Child Left Behind program, or Medicare Part B, or the bank bailout (ok, not a fan of the bank bailout but, still necessary). I don't mind that Obama spent money on the CHIP program, the ACA or the Auto bailout, etc. Each president has a job to do and a country to sustain. Question is, if it helps the country, then why are you so opposed to it? If you oppose spending, then you can explain what specific bill you're opposed to, and what you propose we'd do differently.
All this hooplah about spending this and spending that. Why do you care? How does government over spending negatively affect you, personally? Did you lose a job because of Obama's spending? Were you hurt in any way? Did your house burn down? Got arrested? If you can't come up with a good reason why you're so upset over it, then all this fake anger is pointless.
Without spending, you wouldn't be able to drive down the street. Government pays for traffic lights, they pay for ambulances, schools, public parks. It's our taxpayer dollars going to work. If you enjoy the liberty of driving down the street everyday, then you enjoy government spending. We can't live without it, sorry to burst your bubble.
Obviously, the Huffpost article won't mention your claim of NASA and military cuts. The article was analysis of the film. You're now arguing about cuts, not spending. That's a whole nuther ballgame my friend.
The purpose of that Huffpost article was to prove that D'Souza did not present all the facts to you, as you previously said. Hope that helps you better understand the what is happening in gubment. Learn all the facts. it's why it's safest to be a skeptic.
MarsToSirius
It cut me off so as I was saying lol sorry...Question is, if it helps the country, then why are you so opposed to it? If you oppose spending, then you can explain what specific bill you're opposed to, and what you propose we'd do differently.
All this hooplah about spending this and spending that. Why do you care? How does government spending affect you, personally? Did you lose a job because of Obama's spending? Were you hurt in any way? Did your house burn down? Got arrested? If you can't come up with a good reason why you're so upset over it, then all this fake anger is pointless.
Obviously, the Huffpost article won't mention your claim of NASA and military cuts. The article was analysis of the film. You're now arguing about cuts, not spending. That's a whole nuther ballgame my friend.
The purpose of that Huffpost article was to prove that D'Souza did not present all the facts to you, as you previously said. Hope that helps you better in understanding what is happening in gubment. Learn all the facts- it's why it's safest being a skeptic to EVERYONE.
All this hooplah about spending this and spending that. Why do you care? How does government spending affect you, personally? Did you lose a job because of Obama's spending? Were you hurt in any way? Did your house burn down? Got arrested? If you can't come up with a good reason why you're so upset over it, then all this fake anger is pointless.
Obviously, the Huffpost article won't mention your claim of NASA and military cuts. The article was analysis of the film. You're now arguing about cuts, not spending. That's a whole nuther ballgame my friend.
The purpose of that Huffpost article was to prove that D'Souza did not present all the facts to you, as you previously said. Hope that helps you better in understanding what is happening in gubment. Learn all the facts- it's why it's safest being a skeptic to EVERYONE.