Close

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 49 of 49
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,103
    Rep Points
    31,292.0
    Mentioned
    2055 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    An hour through this movie, not very good. Broad, sweeping generalizations.
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,103
    Rep Points
    31,292.0
    Mentioned
    2055 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    The last 30 minutes are probably the best.

    Overall it's not as good of a documentary as I expected. The filmaker pretty much spends an hour making ties to Kenya and to Obama's father trying to say he is anti-colonial when the colonial period ended a long time ago. I think he really overestimates Obama's power as president.

    He at least does hint correctly on the real problem being the debt.
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,103
    Rep Points
    31,292.0
    Mentioned
    2055 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Search for this movie on Google and look at what is popping up:

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,460
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Search for this movie on Google and look at what is popping up:

    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 2 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
    In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.
    its all bull$#@! man.. youtube is $#@!ing ridiculous now too

    i keep getting these:
    Click here to enlarge

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,608
    Rep Points
    3,236.6
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    33


    Reputation: Yes | No
    lol owned
    Some people live long, meaningful lives.

    Other people eat shit and die.

    I'm not racist, I hate everybody equally; especially fat people.


    Click here to enlarge

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    9400' ASL, Colorado
    Posts
    886
    Rep Points
    1,301.6
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I have to say, it's kind of cool to see the DMCA being implemented. You know, that whole thing about it not being paranoia and whatnot.

    Welcome to America. Now fall in line or we'll throw you down the same well where the ashes of the Constitution remain.
    Current: '00 S2000
    Previous: '15 M235i xDrive | '15 Macan S | '15 WRX STi | '06 Cayman S | '12 E92 335is w/JB4 | '10 STi

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,439
    Rep Points
    2,602.0
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    27


    Reputation: Yes | No
    That's a fair review, Sticky.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    115
    Rep Points
    262.8
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    This movie seems to be the rant of a scriptwriter that turns out not to have done any research other than presenting a viewpoint previously held.

    The director, Dinesh D'Souza, an Indian immigrant who arrived in the US in 1978, Long before he resigned the presidency of The King’s College, a small evangelical school in Manhattan, over his engagement to a 29-year-old woman while still married to his wife of 20 years, Dinesh D’Souza’s star in the conservative intellectual world had faded. Forsaken by the think tanks that groomed him, the precocious conservative scholar of the ’80s was hard to recognize in the bomb-throwing filmmaker of 2016: Obama’s America, which argues that Obama absorbed anticolonial hatred of America from his father."

    As per usual, I wish I had researched the background of this before I wasted time looking at it. What a bunch of horse$#@!, from the mind of an arrogant, deluded, polyamorous, huckstering, propagandistic (hmmm new word...) $#@!. Rinse the wax out of your ears in case anything in this vid might still be stuck in your head.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,460
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by yage202 Click here to enlarge
    This movie seems to be the rant of a scriptwriter that turns out not to have done any research other than presenting a viewpoint previously held.

    The director, Dinesh D'Souza, an Indian immigrant who arrived in the US in 1978, Long before he resigned the presidency of The King’s College, a small evangelical school in Manhattan, over his engagement to a 29-year-old woman while still married to his wife of 20 years, Dinesh D’Souza’s star in the conservative intellectual world had faded. Forsaken by the think tanks that groomed him, the precocious conservative scholar of the ’80s was hard to recognize in the bomb-throwing filmmaker of 2016: Obama’s America, which argues that Obama absorbed anticolonial hatred of America from his father."

    As per usual, I wish I had researched the background of this before I wasted time looking at it. What a bunch of horse$#@!, from the mind of an arrogant, deluded, polyamorous, huckstering, propagandistic (hmmm new word...) $#@!. Rinse the wax out of your ears in case anything in this vid might still be stuck in your head.


    so, whats not true in it?

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    4,198
    Rep Points
    1,800.2
    Mentioned
    102 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Meanwhile, Michael Moore is the source of all absolute truth in this world
    COBB AP ProTune by Bren of ///Bren Tuning
    Akrapovic DP | Helix FMIC | Alpina TCM Flash | Walbro 450LPH Fuel Pump


    "The moment money becomes your motivation, you are immediately not as good as someone who is motivated by passion and internal will." -A. Senna

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,103
    Rep Points
    31,292.0
    Mentioned
    2055 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by benzy89 Click here to enlarge
    Meanwhile, Michael Moore is the source of all absolute truth in this world
    Michael Moore's films are much better than this one.
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    115
    Rep Points
    262.8
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    I threw a bunch of criticisms below about the film and its creator, but the reality is that I can't stand Dinesh D'souza. He is in that category of people that if I met him and he started a conversation with me, I would be locked up for assault shortly thereafter, so I am extremely biased against him.

    Sorry about the use of bandwidth and data storage with this post.

    From Associated Press (AP):

    WASHINGTON (AP) — "2016: Obama's America," a new conservative film exploring the roots of President Barack Obama's political views, took in $6.2 million to make it one of the highest-grossing movies of last weekend. The film, written and narrated by conservative scholar Dinesh D'Souza, argues that Obama was heavily influenced by what D'Souza calls the "anti-colonial" beliefs of his father, Barack Obama Sr., a Kenyan academic who was largely absent from the president's life.
    To document that claim, D'Souza travels to Kenya to interview members of Obama's extended family as well as to Hawaii and Indonesia, where Obama grew up. He also cites several actions and policy positions Obama has taken to support the thesis that Obama is ideologically rooted in the Third World and harbors contempt for the country that elected him its first black president.
    The assertion that Obama's presidency is an expression of his father's political beliefs, which D'Souza first made in 2010 in his book "The Roots of Obama's Rage," is almost entirely subjective and a logical stretch at best.
    It's true that Obama's father lived most of his life in Kenya, an African nation once colonized by the British, and that Obama's reverence for his absent father frames his best-selling memoir. D'Souza even sees clues in the book's title: "Notice it says 'Dreams From My Father,' not 'of' my father," D'Souza says.
    But it's difficult to see how Obama's political leanings could have been so directly shaped by his father, as D'Souza claims. The elder Obama left his wife and young son, the future president, when Obama was 2 and visited his son only once, when Obama was 10. But D'Souza portrays that loss as an event that reinforced rather than weakened the president's ties to his father, who died in an automobile accident when Obama was in college.
    D'Souza interviews Paul Vitz, a New York University psychologist who has studied the impact of absent fathers on children. In Obama's case, Vitz says, the abandonment meant "he has the tension between the Americanism and his Africanism. He himself is an intersection of major political forces in his own psychology."
    From there, the evidence D'Souza uses to support his assertion starts to grow thin.
    D'Souza says Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, shared his father's left-leaning views. After living in Indonesia for several years, D'Souza said, Dunham sent the younger Obama to live with his grandparents in Hawaii so he would not be influenced by her second husband, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian who worked for American oil companies and fought communists as a member of the Indonesian army.
    "Ann separates Barry from Lolo's growing pro-Western influence," D'Souza says in the film. Obama has said his mother had sent him back to Hawaii so he would be educated in the United States.
    In Hawaii, D'Souza asserts with no evidence that Obama sympathized with native Hawaiians who felt they had been marginalized by the American government when Hawaii was becoming a state. D'Souza also asserts — again with no evidence — that Obama had been coached to hold those views at Punahou, the prestigious prep school he attended.
    "Oppression studies, if you will. Obama got plenty of that when he was here in Punahou," D'Souza says, standing on the campus in Honolulu.
    In Kenya, D'Souza interviews Philip Ochieng, a lifelong friend of the president's father, who claims the elder Obama was "totally anti-colonial." Ochieng also discloses some of his own political views, complaining about U.S. policy in Afghanistan and Iraq and saying the U.S. refuses to "tame" Israel, which he calls a "Trojan horse in the Middle East." D'Souza seems to suggest that if a onetime friend of Obama's late father holds those opinions, so, too, must the president himself.
    D'Souza then goes through a list of actions Obama has taken as president to support his thesis. Many of them don't hold water:
    — D'Souza rightly argues that the national debt has risen to $16 trillion under Obama. But he never mentions the explosion of debt that occurred under Obama's predecessor, Republican George W. Bush, nor the 2008 global financial crisis that provoked a shock to the U.S. economy.
    — D'Souza says Obama is "weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadists" in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He does not mention that Obama ordered the raid that killed Osama bin Laden and the drone strikes that have killed dozens of other terrorists in the region.
    —D'Souza wrongly claims that Obama wants to return control of the Falkland Islands from Britain to Argentina. The U.S. refused in April to endorse a final declaration on Argentina's claim to the islands at the Summit of the Americas, provoking criticism from other Latin American nations.
    —D'Souza says Obama has "done nothing" to impede Iran's nuclear ambitions, despite the severe trade and economic sanctions his administration has imposed on that country to halt its suspected nuclear program. Obama opposes a near-term military strike on Iran, either by the U.S. or Israel, although he says the U.S. will never tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.
    — D'Souza says Obama removed a bust of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill from the Oval Office because Churchill represented British colonialism. White House curator William Allman said the bust, which had been on loan, was already scheduled to be returned before Obama took office. Another bust of Churchill is on display in the president's private residence, the White House says.

    From Business Insider:

    Yesterday, I checked out a matinee showing of 2016: Obama's America, the sleeper hit documentary from conservative commentator Dinesh D'Souza, which presents his theory on how Obama's early life influences are shaping his decisions as president.
    It was one of the strangest $13 I've spent in my life.
    (To be fair, it was 1:30 on a Monday afternoon, and the crowd — nine people — was comprised of older white people with the exception of a teenage couple who spent the movie making out in the back of the theater.)
    The film is based on D'Souza's book, The Roots Of Obama's Rage, and most of the claims in both works have been dismissed and/or debunked by a variety of fact-checkers and news outlets. But that hasn't stopped the movie from grossing $26 million, making it one of the most successful documentaries of all time. D'Souza cites Michael Moore as an influence, and the production values are very slick, even with the cheap $9 million production cost.
    The narrative of the documentary is pretty disorganized and meandering, but basically, the idea D'Souza tries to present is that Barack Obama Senior, the Kenyan economist who fathered the president, was a radical anti-colonialist, a worldview that D'Souza characterizes as anti-American.


    Obama's Psychology
    D'Souza makes his case through a series of interviews, including one with New York University psychology professor Paul Vitz, who claims that Obama is coping with the childhood abandonment by his father by aspiring to impress, become, and surpass him.
    In doing so, D'Souza theorizes, Obama has adopted radical views of anti-colonialism, which manifest themselves as anti-capitalist, anti-Christian, and anti-American policies. Basically, he argues that Obama is trying to impress his father he carrying out anti-colonial retribution.
    Obama's "Founding Fathers"
    According to the film, Obama's anti-colonial worldview was cultivated in his father's absence by a series of mentors, who D'Souza terms these men Obama's "Founding Fathers"
    Frank Marshall Davis, described as a Soviet
    Edward Said, described as a Palestinian radical
    Roberto Unger, described as a Brazilian revolutionary
    Bill Ayers, described as a terrorist
    Reverend Jeremiah Wright, described as Obama's surrogate father.
    In reality, a lot of the ties that D'Souza draws between these men and Obama are tenuous at best:
    Davis was a liberal journalist and labor activist who befriended Obama's maternal grandfather
    Said was a Palestinian-born Columbia University literature professor who is said to be the founder of post-colonial literary theory though it is not clear what, if any, kind of relationship Obama had with Said
    Unger is a Brazilian philosopher and longtime Harvard Law School professor who helped co-found Brazil's Democratic Movement Party when the country emerged from military rule in the 1980s
    Obama's relationships with Ayers and Wright have been well-documented.


    Obama's 'Retribution'
    According to D'Souza, these influences have resulted in Obama attempting to bring down the United States to compensate for Western colonial abuses abroad.
    Practically, D'Souza argues that this has manifested itself in Obama's policies, although the only specific policies mentioned in the film are his decisions to stop development of the Keystone Pipeline, and to export oil rights to Brazil and Argentina.
    D'Souza also explains that Obama's motive for removing a bust of Winston Churchill from the White House was because he wanted to symbolically rid the White House of a great British colonialist.
    In the film, D'Souza also travels to Nairobi, Kenya and interviews Obama's half-brother George. D'Souza claims Obama has allowed his half-brother to live in poverty and has not sent money to George — whom he met for a few hours in the eighties — because George is not an anti-colonialist.
    In the end, the only two outright predictions in the movie for what Obama will do if he is re-elected in 2016 are that he will allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, and that he will turn the national debt into a "weapon of mass destruction," although the film doesn't explain how Obama would go about accomplishing these goals.

    Lansing City pulse:

    Not so fast
    A fact checking guide to '2016: Obama's America'
    by Walt Sorg


    I once had to write a college term paper for a course that had a 900-page textbook. Rather than plow through the whole book, I pulled a dozen paragraphs at random and built a paper around them that supported the beliefs of the instructor. The pandering conclusion was fleshed out with some third-party support that had been invented out of thin air. I’m not proud, but it earned me a 3.5, which only strengthened my theory — you can always win an argument if you support the views of the judge.
    It appears filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza employs similar tactics to cobble together his “documentary,” “2016: Obama’s America.” He supports a right wing-appealing argument with a mélange of psycho babble, factual distortions and pure BS. D’Souza even uses quotations from his own books and articles — how incredibly freshman comp.
    You can argue about the film’s techniques, the relevance of the interviews and the meaning of the conclusions. Instead, let’s focus on D’Souza’s thesis: President Obama is a secret anti-colonialist socialist who hates our traditional allies and wants to bring the West down to a Third World level.
    The film gets one thing right — Barack Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. But then D’Souza says that Hawaii isn’t really American, its former independence and geographic detachment making it a foreign environment. The mind reels at his thoughts on Alaska and a certain former vice presidential candidate.
    D’Souza spends most of the film examining both his own life as an immigrant from India and the life and times of Barack Obama Sr., as depicted in the president’s first book, “Dreams from My Father.” It is widely known that Obama Sr. played virtually no role in Obama Jr.’s upbringing, yet D’Souza suggests that the president inherited an anti-American philosophy from a man he barely knew. (If we accept D’Souza’s primary thesis that fathers mold the politics of the son, we would have to conclude that Mitt Romney shares the tax-and-spend progressive political views of his father, George Romney, who was pro-choice, created Michigan’s personal and business income taxes and nearly tripled the state budget during his six years as governor.)
    A random sampling of the film’s “facts,” and their rebuttals:
    • D’Souza blames the nation’s $16 trillion deficit solely on Obama, giving only passing mention to the structural deficit created before Obama took office. He makes no mention of the 2008 global financial crisis, and conveniently fails to note that the Obama administration has begun reducing the deficit, which the CBO projects is down about $200 billion from last year. (CBO report, Aug. 21, 2012.)
    • D’Souza attacks the president’s efforts to reduce nuclear stockpiles, conveniently ignoring the fact that the process of worldwide nuclear disarmament began under Ronald Reagan and has continued under every president since. D’Souza labels Obama’s call for a world without nukes as a “dreamy idea,” somehow forgetting Reagan’s call for “the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.” (Ronald Reagan, Second Inaugural Address, Jan. 21, 1985.)
    • D’Souza says that Obama returned a bronze bust of Winston Churchill that had been presented to George W. Bush. This apparently shows Obama’s disdain for Britain’s colonial history, but the real story is pretty dull: the bust had been on loan to the White House from the British for the duration of the Bush administration. According to the White House curator, the piece was already scheduled to be returned before Obama took office. Never mind that there’s another bust of Churchill in the president’s private residence. (Associated Press, Aug. 31, 2012.)
    • He claims Obama has “done nothing” to impede Iran’s nuclear ambitions. There can be legitimate debate over the president’s strategy of imposing sanctions on Iran to halt the nuclear program, but the contention that nothing has been done is patently false. (White House Fact Sheet, July 31, 2012.)
    • He claims that President Obama passed the bank bailout (TARP), even though it actually passed during the Bush administration. Obama, who was a senator at the time, did support TARP … along with President Bush, Sen. John McCain, Gov. Sarah Palin, GOP House Leader John Boehner and GOP Senate Leader Mitch McConnell. (factcheck.org, multiple articles.)
    • He says Obama spent $2 billion to fund oil exploration in Brazil, a claim that has been thoroughly discredited by numerous sources. (factcheck.org, Sept. 18, 2009.)
    • He charges the president supported Scotland’s release of Abdel Basset Mohamed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, even though the administration actually had this to say: “As we have expressed repeatedly to officials of the government of the United Kingdom and to Scottish authorities, we continue to believe that Megrahi should serve out his sentence in Scotland.” (White House statement, Aug. 20, 2009.)
    • He accuses the president of supporting the return of the Falkland Islands from Britain to Argentina. In reality, the administration remains officially neutral but recognizes U.K.’s de facto administration of the Falklands. (U.S. State Department statement, Jan. 19, 2012.)
    • D’Souza calls Obama “weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadists” in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This should come as a surprise to the late Osama bin Laden and other terrorists who have been killed by the United States military.
    Since it opened in July, “2016” has made over $32 million— good enough for No. 5 on the list of all-time top-grossing documentaries. Bloomberg News called it “a nutty film.” Variety, a normally apolitical publication, called the film “a cavalcade of conspiracy theories, psycho-politico conjectures and incendiary labeling.” To me, however, it’s just a Sacha Baron Cohen movie without the laughs … and 90 minutes I’ll never get back.



    About Dinesh D'souza:

    From Salon:

    Dinesh D'Souza's Brazilian Conspiracy Theory
    By David Weigel
    A friendly commenter on my post about Newt Gingrich's approval of D'Souza's article "How Obama Thinks" reminded me of this line in the article.


    Why support oil drilling off the coast of Brazil but not in America?Obama believes that the West uses a disproportionate share of theworld's energy resources, so he wants neocolonial America to have lessand the former colonized countries to have more.


    What's D'Souza referring to? In April 2009 the Export-Import Bank of the United States gave preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Petrobras, Brazil's state oil company. If April 2009 sounds like too early for Obama to have packed the Export-Import Bank with his Kenyan anti-colonial appointees, it was: At the time, the board consisted of five George W. Bush appointees. They approved it, according to sources collected by Snopes, for the reason the Export-Import Bank usually approves things -- to "encourage purchases of U.S. goods from Petrobras." And the $2 billion wasn't even taxpayer money, but private investment.


    So where did this idea that Obama was funding oil exploration in Brazil come from? First, predictably, it came from Glenn Beck. In August, during the debate over the offshore drilling moratorium, it came from a sloppy editorial in the Wall Street Journal.


    The U.S. Export-Import Bank tells us it has issued a "preliminarycommitment" letter to Petrobras in the amount of $2 billion and hasdiscussed with Brazil the possibility of increasing that amount. Ex-ImBank says it has not decided whether the money will come in the form ofa direct loan or loan guarantees. Either way, this corporate foreignaid may strike some readers as odd, given that the U.S. Treasury seemsdesperate for cash and Petrobras is one of the largest corporations inthe Americas.


    I'll reiterate that this "corporate foreign aid" did not actually consist of taxpayer dollars. So D'Souza's point about Brazil is bogus -- it wasn't Obama appointees who approved the deal, and the Bush appointees who did intended to increase U.S. exports to Brazil.


    I've read much of D'Souza's upcoming book, from which this article was adapted, and this is not the only lazy error. It's a revealing one, however, demonstrating just how eager he is to find "aha!" moments of Obama's alleged "anti-colonial" politics. He's so eager that he doesn't have time to check the facts.

    Esquire:

    Why Does Dinesh D'Souza Hate America?
    By Mark Warren
    at 11:33AM




    TAMPA, Fla. — To some people here at the Republican National Convention, a sophistry merchant like Dinesh D'Souza strides the globe like a colossus. Here, this man D'Souza is a truth-teller for the ages. Glenn Beck says that only D'Souza knows the truth about Obama and his deeply un-American designs for the country which we all call home. Rush Limbaugh talks about D'Souza with awe and excitement, and says that his new documentary may well constitute a turning point in this election. 2016: Obama's America (No. 1 at the box office over the weekend, on a gross per-screen basis, No. 8 overall) is the unified field theory of the interloper Obama, the key to understanding everything about his otherness for those who live for dark conspiracies, and D'Souza is being celebrated for his courage and scholarship and good timing. Thank God he told this essential story before the election, the thinking goes. 2016 should be required viewing. In D'Souza's fever dream, even Obama's focus-group bromides from 2008, Hope and Change, take on new and sinister meaning before our eyes. Don't you see, people? He is not at all what he appears to be. Cue ominous music.
    Of course, D'Souza only passes as a scholar for people who live in the Fox bubble, and get all their information from Fox, and only talk to other bubblers. But that's okay. Everybody's got to earn a buck, baby needs new shoes, and D'Souza's got a genius shtick going.
    His basic idea is that Obama's cool comportment is but a disciplined cover for a seething rage and determination to, in the course of a single presidency, correct the grievous harm that America has inflicted on the world. He recently told Beck (who can't get enough of this $#@!): "Obama has a global vision that is, 'I want to set the ship of the world right, and what that means is that America has to go down, so the rest of the world can come up.' ... Barack Obama subscribes to an ideology that sees America as the rogue nation in the world. What is this ideology? It's kind of a third-world anti-Americanism, anti-colonialism."
    Shhh... don't tell D'Souza and his groupies that anti-colonialism and anti-Americanism are not the same thing, and in truth are opposites, so much so that it can be said that the the characteristic that first distinguished the American people from all the other peoples of the earth was our determined anti-colonialism. We fought a whole war about it (see Revolution, American).
    Has there ever been an American president who wasn't "anti-colonial"?
    D'Souza goes on to actually make these words come out of his mouth:
    Obama possesses in his pocket what can be called certificates of racial absolution. Now, I don't mean by this simply that he's black, African-American. That's not the key to it. The key to it is that he's a different kind of African-American. He's not Jesse Jackson, he's not Al Sharpton. We're used to black leaders who make racial demands — "you're a racist, unless you pay me'"— and that has put America in a very defensive position. Here comes Obama, and he never brings the subject up. He's above it. He's the racial healer.... The fact that he doesn't intimidate you with explicit racial appeals is immensely relieving to whites, because whites go, Oh wow, he allows us to believe that we've gotten beyond all that.... This is Obama's secret weapon.
    You see what D'Souza did just there? He just told us that the proof for his elaborate Kenyan anti-colonial rage theory is that there is no proof at all. Obama's not even acting black! That's how good he is at this game. And he is ruthlessly fulfilling the socialistic plan of his America-hating father by... renewing the Bush tax cuts, passing Bob Dole's health care plan from 1993, and surging the troops in Afghanistan. Can't you people see?!
    Now, we can't blame that whole Fox demographic for their lusty consumption of this demented ahistoric bilge, as they're in the bunker where there's hardly any air and no natural light. But one must continue to blame D'Souza, whose crimes against truth and reason continue to earn him far too decent a living.
    But those of us not in the bubble have an obligation to counter this nonsense and point out D'Souza's obvious projection: While he points at Obama and says, "Un-America," it is D'Souza himself who hates America and her values.
    Remember, it is D'Souza who five years ago published The Enemy At Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11, in which he blamed the death that rained down on us on September 11, 2001 not on on the religious fanatics who were actually responsible for it, but on his fellow Americans. The "cultural left" who, by its failure to stone homosexuals to death in the public square, and its insistence on speaking so freely and having so much sex, provoked the violence of crazy Muslims, giving them no choice but to kill us en masse. That's what D'Souza's book actually said.
    The man who spun that fantasy earned more money per screen last weekend than The Expendables 2.
    Incidentally, when The Enemy at Home came out, I challenged D'Souza to fight. He never answered me directly, though he did complain to the papers that I wanted to put him in the hospital. On that, at last, he and I can agree. The offer continues to stand. Dinesh, I'm in Tampa, and am very easy to reach. Call me.

    Columbia Journalism Review:

    Dinesh D’Souza Digs Himself in Deeper
    Some more criticism of Forbes’s disastrous Obama cover story
    By Ryan Chittum


    Dinesh D’Souza has responded to my, uh, criticism of his smear piece that, shamefully, made the cover of Forbes with its claims that Obama is directed by a “Kenyan, anticolonial” worldview (as Newt Gingrich succinctly summarized it) that comes from his dad, whom Obama met once.


    (White House Press Secretary Robert) Gibbs fired a second salvo a few days later, asking, “Why didn’t Forbes hire a fact checker…did they simply not care about the facts?” Gibbs offered no facts of his own, however. He merely linked to two web posts–one in the Columbia Journalism Review, one on “The Fourth Branch”–that disputed the article. The Columbia Journalism Review piece was high on invective (“the worst kind of smear journalism–a singularly disgusting work,” blah blah blah) but simply quoted large segments of the article as if they were self-evidently appalling–which of course they are to all confirmed Obamorons, who are only satisfied with hosannas and genuflections before the Anoined One.
    Well, I did a lot more than quote it as if it were self-evidently appalling. Go read it yourself.


    But I’ll admit I pulled up a bit on it. I could have written another 5,000 words dissecting D’Souza’s baloney. So here’s some bonus criticism.


    Here’s D’Souza and Forbes:


    Consider this headline from the Aug. 18, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal: “Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling.” Did you read that correctly? You did. The Administration supports offshore drilling—but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama’s backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil’s state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro—not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.
    I pointed out the other day one reason this was one of the most moronic paragraphs ever to appear in Forbes (which is saying something!).


    Oil is fungible, dude. But also, the point of the Ex-Im loans, which were approved by Bush officials, is that they finance our exports. We lend foreigners money to buy our stuff and create jobs here. We do it all the time.


    Oh yeah, and “Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards.” That’s the Ex-Im Bank president writing last year in response to the fact-twisting Wall Street Journal editorial D’Souza cites.


    In the paragraph immediately following that one, D’Souza pushes to break his own record in the annals of Forbes nonsense:


    Obama railed on about “America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels.” What does any of this have to do with the oil spill?
    Hmm. We need lots of oil, so we keep going further afield to drill for it. When you drill in two-mile-deep water, it’s hard to plug a well. And so it gushes for three months. Is it really that hard to understand?


    The next graph is just plain ignorant:


    Obama’s Administration has declared that even banks that want to repay their bailout money may be refused permission to do so. Only after the Obama team cleared a bank through the Fed’s “stress test” was it eligible to give taxpayers their money back. Even then, declared Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, the Administration might force banks to keep the money.
    See, there’s this thing called bank regulation. You have to keep a certain amount of capital to remain in good standing. Some banks didn’t have enough capital and posed risks to the entire financial system. Also, every bank that’s wanted to pay back their TARP funds has been allowed to do so. This is what happens when you rely on The Wall Street Journal editorial page—and a year-and-a half-old piece by a Fox anchor at that!—to find your arguments


    And the next paragraph:


    The President continues to push for stimulus even though hundreds of billions of dollars in such funds seem to have done little. The unemployment rate when Obama took office in January 2009 was 7.7%; now it is 9.5%.
    That’s also disingenuous, at best. The nonpartisan CBO says between 1.1 million and 3.3 million Americans have jobs because of the stimulus spending, which added anywhere between 1.5 percentage points and 4.6 points to GDP last year.


    Then there’s this gem?


    Obama’s foreign policy is no less strange. He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center. Obama’s rationale, that “our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable,” seems utterly irrelevant to the issue of why the proposed Cordoba House should be constructed at Ground Zero.
    So protecting the First Amendment is “foreign policy” now?


    And how about this one (emphasis mine):


    A few months ago nasa Chief Charles Bolden announced that from now on the primary mission of America’s space agency would be to improve relations with the Muslim world.
    That’s twisted beyond any reasonable reading.


    Are we getting the pattern now? If not, here’s more of D’Souza’s dishonest bid to paint the American president as anti-American:


    A half-century later Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of America as creating “a distinct species of mankind.” This is known as American exceptionalism. But when asked at a 2009 press conference whether he believed in this ideal, Obama said no. America, he suggested, is no more unique or exceptional than Britain or Greece or any other country.
    That’s simply false.


    Here’s what Obama actually said:


    I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism. I’m enormously proud of my country and its role and history in the world. If you think about the site of this summit and what it means, I don’t think America should be embarrassed to see evidence of the sacrifices of our troops, the enormous amount of resources that were put into Europe postwar, and our leadership in crafting an Alliance that ultimately led to the unification of Europe. We should take great pride in that.


    And if you think of our current situation, the United States remains the largest economy in the world. We have unmatched military capability. And I think that we have a core set of values that are enshrined in our Constitution, in our body of law, in our democratic practices, in our belief in free speech and equality, that, though imperfect, are exceptional.


    Now, the fact that I am very proud of my country and I think that we’ve got a whole lot to offer the world does not lessen my interest in recognizing the value and wonderful qualities of other countries, or recognizing that we’re not always going to be right, or that other people may have good ideas, or that in order for us to work collectively, all parties have to compromise and that includes us.


    And so I see no contradiction between believing that America has a continued extraordinary role in leading the world towards peace and prosperity and recognizing that that leadership is incumbent, depends on, our ability to create partnerships because we create partnerships because we can’t solve these problems alone.


    Apparently, D’Souza thinks that anyone who doesn’t think we should impose our views on the world or who thinks other countries have patriots, too, is a loinclothed, communist Luo tribesman hiding behind a Western suit and tie.


    As I said on Monday, D’Souza goes on to completely misrepresent what Obama conveys about his father in his book Dreams From My Father. D’Souza’s entire warped thesis rests on the notion that Obama sees his father as an “inspirational hero.” But no honest reader of the book would come away with the idea that Obama idolizes his deadbeat dad.


    More:


    If Obama shares his father’s anticolonial crusade, that would explain why he wants people who are already paying close to 50% of their income in overall taxes to pay even more.
    Just who are these American taxpayers already paying close to 50 percent of their income in taxes? The liberal Citizens for Tax Justice says the highest overall tax rate (this includes federal, state, and local taxes) is 32.2 percent. The top 1 percent pay even less—30.9 percent. They include employer-paid FICA taxes as income, which seems wrong to me. But the conservative Tax Foundation reports that the top 0.1 percent pay an effective federal tax rate of 21.5 percent. The last total tax rate I see from them is 2004, when it reported that the top quintile of earners paid an average total tax rate of 34.5 percent. They don’t break out the top 1 percent, but their rate would actually be lower than that of the top 20 percent as a whole.


    Finally, D’Souza denies in his blog post that the piece is racist, but of course it is. Indeed, it’s racist at its rotten core. That’s the whole point. You can’t write stuff like “Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s,” and credibly assert that it’s not racist. Or how about this doozy at the end of his blogpost:


    No, Obama is not a Muslim. No, Obama is not a socialist. The truth is far worse.
    Worse than a Muslim or a socialist!


    That Forbes gave the cover of its mainstream magazine to this piece will be a black mark on its reputation for a long, long time.

    Another CJR piece:

    Forbes’ Shameful Piece on Obama as the “Other”
    The worst kind of smear journalism by Dinesh D’Souza
    By Ryan Chittum


    So it’s come to this: Forbes cover story on “How Obama Thinks” is a gross piece of innuendo—a fact-twisting, error-laden piece of paranoia. This is the worst kind of smear journalism—a singularly disgusting work.


    Forbes for some reason gives Dinesh D’Souza the cover and lots of space to froth about the notion popular in the right-wing fever swamps that Obama is an “other”; that he doesn’t think like “an American,” that his actions benefit foreigners rather than Amurricans. It’s too kind to call this innuendo. It’s far too overt for that.


    Here are some of the red flags up top:


    Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president in a generation, perhaps in American history… The President’s actions are so bizarre that they mystify his critics and supporters alike… More strange behavior… The oddities go on and on… Obama’s foreign policy is no less strange. He supports a $100 million mosque scheduled to be built near the site where terrorists in the name of Islam brought down the World Trade Center… the Obama Administration supported the conditional release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber convicted in connection with the deaths of 270 people, mostly Americans… One more anomaly: A few months ago nasa Chief Charles Bolden announced that from now on the primary mission of America’s space agency would be to improve relations with the Muslim world… Theories abound to explain the President’s goals and actions.
    And then there’s this:


    These theories aren’t wrong so much as they are inadequate. Even if they could account for Obama’s domestic policy, they cannot explain his foreign policy. The real problem with Obama is worse—much worse. But we have been blinded to his real agenda because, across the political spectrum, we all seek to fit him into some version of American history. In the process, we ignore Obama’s own history. Here is a man who spent his formative years—the first 17 years of his life—off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa.


    A good way to discern what motivates Obama is to ask a simple question: What is his dream? Is it the American dream? Is it Martin Luther King’s dream? Or something else?


    It is certainly not the American dream as conceived by the founders.


    It’s all here but the birth certificate!


    Let’s unpack that stuff a little bit. First of all, D’Souza perpetuates the Cokie Roberts idiocy—that Hawaii is somehow less American than the rest of the U.S. But hey—no problems with Alaska, which came into the Union the same year. Somehow, Sarah Palin always seem to be an examplar of “Real America.” Hmmm.


    But D’Souza has some real nerve here: Obama is a native-born American and D’Souza is not. When he says “Here is a man who spent his formative years—the first 17 years of his life—off the American mainland,” he could be referring to himself. According to Wikipedia, anyway, he was born in India in 1961 and never came to the States until 1978. That adds up to about “the first 17 years of his life—off the American mainland.” Somehow the first-seventeen years thing raises questions about Obama’s Americanness but not about D’Souza’s qualifications to question somebody’s degree of native-born Americanness.


    This is loathsome stuff. And, again, it’s the cover story of one of the three big mainstream financial magazines.


    There’s more “Obama isn’t one of us” stuff here:


    What then is Obama’s dream? We don’t have to speculate because the President tells us himself in his autobiography, Dreams from My Father. According to Obama, his dream is his father’s dream…


    So who was Barack Obama Sr.? He was a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He was a polygamist who had, over the course of his lifetime, four wives and eight children. One of his sons, Mark Obama, has accused him of abuse and wife-beating. He was also a regular drunk driver who got into numerous accidents, killing a man in oneand causing his own legs to be amputated due to injury in another. In 1982 he got drunk at a bar in Nairobi and drove into a tree, killing himself.
    An odd choice, certainly, as an inspirational hero.


    Did anybody come away from reading Dreams From My Father with the idea that Obama thought his father was a hero? I sure didn’t.


    The veneer of respectability, if you can call it that, that D’Souza and Forbes put on this noxious near-McCarthyite junk is that Obama is an “anticolonialist.” It’s thin gruel. And, hey—I’m an anticolonialist, too. And so were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the rest of the gang.


    But D’Souza and Forbes go on to smear Obama with his father’s life and work. And this is where you figure out that “anticolonialist” is just a code word for “anti-American.” Let’s remember that Obama met his father one time in his life. D’Souza:


    As Obama Sr. put it, “We need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now.” The senior Obama proposed that the state confiscate private land and raise taxes with no upper limit. In fact, he insisted that “theoretically there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.”


    Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father’s history very well, has never mentioned his father’s article. Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House.


    Obama wants to let the Bush tax cuts expire for the top 2% and return to the 39.6 percent rate from the current 36 percent? Well, that’s because his no-account dad was an African commie! Three point six percentage points.


    So Barack Obama, who falls somewhere on the middle or right side of the spectrum of modern American liberalism, is now an outsider motivated by anti-American ideals. The birthers got nothin’ on this guy.


    The atrociousness isn’t limited to the smears. This, for instance, has to be one of the stupidest paragraphs ever written in Forbes (emphasis mine):


    The President’s actions are so bizarre that they mystify his critics and supporters alike. Consider this headline from the Aug. 18, 2009 issue of the Wall Street Journal: “Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling.” Did you read that correctly? You did. The Administration supports offshore drilling—but drilling off the shores of Brazil. With Obama’s backing, the U.S. Export-Import Bank offered $2 billion in loans and guarantees to Brazil’s state-owned oil company Petrobras to finance exploration in the Santos Basin near Rio de Janeiro—not so the oil ends up in the U.S. He is funding Brazilian exploration so that the oil can stay in Brazil.
    Get that? The oil that Petrobras pumps will only go to Brazil because it’s owned by Brazil. So Hugo Chavez will sell us his Citgo gas, but Lula won’t? And even if it somehow did (it should be noted that Petrobras has an American affiliate), that would mean Brazil would need less oil from elsewhere, which means more for us. Supply and demand, dude. Oil is fungible. Gah.


    And here’s the obscene kicker:


    Incredibly, the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s. This philandering, inebriated African socialist, who raged against the world for denying him the realization of his anticolonial ambitions, is now setting the nation’s agenda through the reincarnation of his dreams in his son. The son makes it happen, but he candidly admits he is only living out his father’s dream. The invisible father provides the inspiration, and the son dutifully gets the job done. America today is governed by a ghost.
    Forbes has shamed itself with this one.

    Slate.com:

    Newt Is Nuts!
    Why is Gingrich pushing Dinesh D'Souza's crazy theory about Obama's "Kenyan anti-colonialism"?
    By David Weigel|Posted Monday, Sept. 13, 2010, at 10:23 PM ET

    The release of a new book by Dinesh D'Souza prompts a perennial question: Why do people keep publishing books by Dinesh D'Souza?
    There's a simple answer. Newt Gingrich provided it to me and National Review's Robert Costa on Saturday night. After the premiere of his documentary America at Risk, Gingrich mused about the brilliance of D'Souza's Forbes magazine cover story about the "roots of Obama's rage," based on his upcoming book with that title. The roots, according to D'Souza, were in mid-1960s, Marxist-inspired, Kenyan anti-colonialism. Gingrich repeated those words—"Kenyan, anti-colonial"—and called the article "brilliant."
    "I'm going to actually get it, post it, and send to people regularly," said Gingrich. "It's the most interesting insight. You guys," he said, nodding at Costa, "might want to do a conference on it, unless AEI does it."


    Getting Newt Gingrich to endorse your article is, in the year 2010, a nuclear trigger. Within a few hours, Gingrich was condemned by every Democrat with blogging software. The D'Souza thesis became the latest conservative idea denounced by Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman who likes to defuse grenades by jumping on top of them.
    And that's the answer to the "Why publish D'Souza?" question. It should be obvious by now that there is literally no conservative argument too "crazy" to be obsessed over by liberals. Every time a new one surfaces, they try to run it out of the mainstream by drawing extra attention to it. In 2008, Obama campaign's strategy was to refuse to comment on rumors or conspiracy talk—until the campaign launched a Web site in June devoted to debunking all of it. In 2010, the Democratic strategy is to freak out, all the time, about everything. It's not going so well, but that's largely because the economy isn't going so well, either.
    Still, it's jarring to see D'Souza making the latest attack. His book, The Roots of Obama's Rage, is a mess. His most memorable previous books were messes, too. Every time he publishes a new mess, it gets the full Pastor Jones treatment in the respectable press. That's had basically no effect on his ability to get published or his ability to get onto the stage at conservative conferences. But it is good for liberals. D'Souza was the first modern conservative author to discover—the hard way—that if you want to be a pundit, there is no downside to making a reprehensible argument. The downside comes for the people who may agree with your politics but not your argument.
    The start of the D'Souza phenomenon came in 1995, when he published The End of Racism. Written to ride the wave of books and articles that called for white America to get over its racial guilt, it included lines like the "American slave was treated like property, which is to say, pretty well." It was so sloppy and unconvincing that it killed the genre for a few years; it's a 700-page doorstop by a one-time AEI scholar that no one cites today. The next D'Souza implosion came in 2007, with the publication of another book that killed its genre. The Enemy at Home consisted of an argument that the "left" was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. That was an irresistible hook for a publisher, especially after the public had turned on the Bush administration and the war on terror. But D'Souza made such a hash out of it that the people who had danced around the left-and-9/11 idea realized how deeply stupid it was. Victor Davis Hanson joined the mob and pointed out, as politely as he could, that D'Souza's enemies list was "nonsensical."
    So The Roots of Obama's Rage is D'Souza's third pseudo-academic swing for the fences. In the book, and in the Forbes article that Gingrich plans to spread far and wide, he strikes out. D'Souza's point is that Obama's Dreams From My Father and his father's 1965 report on socialism tell us all we need to know about why his love for America is a little limp, but he pads out the book and the article with a lot of meandering and dross about how he came to this conclusion. As in The End of Racism, he performs a pre-emptive ad hominem rebuttal to critics.
    "I'm a native of Mumbai, India," D'Souza writes in the new book, "so I grew up in a different part of the world, as Obama did. I'm nonwhite, as he is. He had a white mom and grew up in an inter-racial family." (In 1995, he wrote: "I feel especially qualified to address the subject of multiculturalism because I am a kind of walking embodiment of it. I was born in Bombay, India in 1961.") This is the literary equivalent of putting on eyeglasses so a bully won't hit you.
    Well, the hits are deserved. D'Souza admits to readers that this is his third crack at a Grand Unifying Theory of Obama, after a Hobbesian take he called "Obama's Leviathan" and an argument that "Obama got his big government philosophy from the civil rights era." Only after seeing Obama give a definition of "American exceptionalism" that didn't sound right did D'Souza go back to Obama's books and realize that the president was cribbing his politics from 1960s Marxist and anti-colonial theory.
    "This is intellectual terrain I know well," he writes. Obama "demonizes his predecessor and his opponents," according to D'Souza, because he looks to former Kenyan Prime Minister and President Jomo Kenyatta as an inspiration. That creates a mystery about why George W. Bush criticized Bill Clinton or Clinton criticized Bush's father, but never mind: D'Souza's rolling. D'Souza looks at Obama's 2008 campaign and sees "social and cultural whitening" and the "triumph of lactification," a word he invents to describe said whitening. While everyone else read Dreams From My Father and saw Obama burning with disappointment in Barack Sr., D'Souza sees a man burning with "hatred derived from the debris of the anti-colonial wars." Even the title of Obama's book becomes ominous, when D'Souza takes his third crack at analyzing it: "[T]here have been cases of men who are so preoccupied with their dark dreams that they have difficulty adjusting to contemporary reality. The dream, as it were, becomes a time machine."
    Read this book, or the version mystifyingly splashed on the cover of Forbes, and you have to think that D'Souza has ruined a very fun game for conservatives. He's taken a not-so-subtle political trick—the intimation that Obama must be hiding something about his past, something that reveals why he's been such a left-wing president—and made it much more difficult. That's because the quest to find anti-colonial sentiment in Obama's biography reminds us that, in fact, Obama has never tried to cover up this part of his past. If he had, the first lines of his star-making 2004 DNC speech screwed that up.
    "My father was a foreign student," said Obama, "born and raised in a small village in Kenya. He grew up herding goats, went to school in a tin-roof shack. His father—my grandfather—was a cook, a domestic servant to the British."
    There's nothing in that speech about Obama Sr.'s 1965 musing about confiscatory taxes, but here's the man making his national political debut by hinting at the "source of his rage": colonialism. He seemed to have gotten over it. And if pulling that one quote from this speech to make a point seems cheap, it's less of a stretch then poring over, literally, a few dozen pages of a best-selling memoir to argue that the man who favored a smaller stimulus than Paul Krugman and a wider war in Afghanistan than Joe Biden is a closet Mau Mau.
    What will be the impact of D'Souza's book? If 1995 and 2007 repeat themselves, Gingrich will be the exception—people in the rest of the movement will realize just how tissue-thin this research is. If they realize that, they may then look askance at Glenn Beck's search for similar evidence of Obama's radical history. They may even question the wisdom of questioning Obama's birthplace. Could the search for some skeleton key in Obama's past be a distraction? It could be! If it were a book, it could be called the The End of Birtherism.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,103
    Rep Points
    31,292.0
    Mentioned
    2055 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    ^ Man give me cliff notes, I have a lot of posts to read.
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,460
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    its a lot bs, gonna take a while to fact check the "fact checkers" since i know what i skimmed was BS.


    PS, what ya think about trumps offer? nothing to hide its an easy 5 mil for a charity..

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,103
    Rep Points
    31,292.0
    Mentioned
    2055 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    its a lot bs, gonna take a while to fact check the "fact checkers" since i know what i skimmed was BS.


    PS, what ya think about trumps offer? nothing to hide its an easy 5 mil for a charity..
    Trump's offer is idiotic and Obama would be stupid to take that kind of bait. I would just let Trump look like a fool, he needs to STFU.
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,460
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    lol, how so, 5 million is A LOT of money for a charity. the past 5 or so presidents have done it, for free, why wont this one? NOT doing it shows exactly the kinda person he is, and only further promotes that there is something to hide.

    Dont get me wrong, the fact that if there is (which i do) something to hide, then the entire vetting process is BS and truelly lends credability to the fact this system is broken, and the 2 sides work together toward the same goal, only balancing which side is in as a measure of how much they can get away with in so much time..

    but 5 mil for a charity to pick up the phone and do what presidents do? easy choice

    (Insert double entandre about Benghazi coverup and again not picking up the phone here)

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    115
    Rep Points
    262.8
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Probably should have left this thread alone. As I said Dinesh D'souza is a DH and I am extremely biased against him. The world would be a better place if he would STFU and go back to Mumbai. What you describe as BS from the fact checkers is their attempt to relate the conjecture that this moron engages in to develop a conclusion. By his standard of factual basis you could convict me of most major crimes through the six degrees of separation due to the people I have associated with throughout my life. You could also declare me emperor of the world, a much better outcome for me.

    Donald Trump is a prime example of why a businessman is not necessarily the best choice as president. George H Bush might be another example. If the president suffers this fool with his college transcripts and passport application after enduring him on the birth certificate (I know, I know...its forged, no wait its the wrong form, no wait the Hawaiian officials are covering up...no wait his father really isn't his father...whatever) the next thing will be his Illinois residency or his high school transcripts or grade school records, or his supposed divorce papers, or.....

    How about Trump offering an additional $5 million to see Romney's 10 years of tax returns, or defend his residency switching as governor, or explaining the patriotic step of holding money in offshore accounts (legal but not right), or his reasoning for taking of Federal funds for the 'saving of the Winter Olympics' or......

    Distraction!

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    Rep Points
    132.3
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    The last 30 minutes are probably the best.

    Overall it's not as good of a documentary as I expected. The filmaker pretty much spends an hour making ties to Kenya and to Obama's father trying to say he is anti-colonial when the colonial period ended a long time ago. I think he really overestimates Obama's power as president.

    He at least does hint correctly on the real problem being the debt.
    We sometimes share differing views Sticky, but I Rep'd you on this one. After watching in its entirety, my sentiments were exactly the same. The basis/theory driving the first hour of the film, simply stated, didn't make any sense. The last 30min about our debt, though still a dramatization, was the only piece worth watching.

    For all of the media hype and praise, I expected a much better, fact-based spend of time.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    977
    Rep Points
    779.1
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8



    Reputation: Yes | No
    could we please be more concise and less partial with our posts so we can have a civil discussion rather than the typical forum rants and multiparagraph cut'n'pastes of regurgitation that are so prevalent in other off topic subforums?


    has anyone thought about if the US was willing to sell a state and just move israel here?
    with israel out of the middle east we would have rectified our mistake in WW2 and taken them out of harms way.
    that in culmination with getting domestic drilling back in motion and we'd have a different sized footprint in the middle east.
    i know its a pipe dream and i know israel would turn the offer down but a kid can dream right?

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jerzee
    Posts
    2,306
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Trump's offer is idiotic and Obama would be stupid to take that kind of bait. I would just let Trump look like a fool, he needs to STFU.
    I hate to agree but I agree... Trump to me is nothing more than an attention whore and a pot stirring nut.
    We stay swingin...
    Click here to enlarge

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Jerzee
    Posts
    2,306
    Mentioned
    82 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    lol, how so, 5 million is A LOT of money for a charity. the past 5 or so presidents have done it, for free, why wont this one? NOT doing it shows exactly the kinda person he is, and only further promotes that there is something to hide.

    Dont get me wrong, the fact that if there is (which i do) something to hide, then the entire vetting process is BS and truelly lends credability to the fact this system is broken, and the 2 sides work together toward the same goal, only balancing which side is in as a measure of how much they can get away with in so much time..

    but 5 mil for a charity to pick up the phone and do what presidents do? easy choice

    (Insert double entandre about Benghazi coverup and again not picking up the phone here)
    Romney didnt want to release his tax records in the same volume as many that seemed OK by you? Just sayin...
    We stay swingin...
    Click here to enlarge

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,103
    Rep Points
    31,292.0
    Mentioned
    2055 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Ken_C Click here to enlarge
    We sometimes share differing views Sticky, but I Rep'd you on this one. After watching in its entirety, my sentiments were exactly the same. The basis/theory driving the first hour of the film, simply stated, didn't make any sense. The last 30min about our debt, though still a dramatization, was the only piece worth watching.

    For all of the media hype and praise, I expected a much better, fact-based spend of time.
    I don't know why anyone disagree with me but glad you agree.
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,103
    Rep Points
    31,292.0
    Mentioned
    2055 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sledgehammer Click here to enlarge
    I hate to agree but I agree... Trump to me is nothing more than an attention whore and a pot stirring nut.
    Hate to agree why? Just because? Get rid of absurd bias.
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,103
    Rep Points
    31,292.0
    Mentioned
    2055 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    313


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    lol, how so, 5 million is A LOT of money for a charity. the past 5 or so presidents have done it, for free, why wont this one? NOT doing it shows exactly the kinda person he is, and only further promotes that there is something to hide.

    Dont get me wrong, the fact that if there is (which i do) something to hide, then the entire vetting process is BS and truelly lends credability to the fact this system is broken, and the 2 sides work together toward the same goal, only balancing which side is in as a measure of how much they can get away with in so much time..

    but 5 mil for a charity to pick up the phone and do what presidents do? easy choice

    (Insert double entandre about Benghazi coverup and again not picking up the phone here)
    You are wrong on this one, sorry man.
    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale: http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •