2016 Movie - Who is Obama?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Meet George Obama:

'As a tall, strangely familiar figure leaves his one-room shack in a notorious African slum this week, a few people jokingly call out to him: ‘Mister President! Mister President!’

Heading for breakfast through his junk-strewn yard, stepping over streams of sewage, the appearance of this slim, angular man prompts giggles and pointing from children in rags playing in the muck.

The man’s name is George Hussein Obama and his half-brother is Barack Hussein Obama, Kenya’s most famous son, the first black President of the U.S. and the most powerful man in the world. [S]tanding - let alone talking much sense or walking in a straight line - is tricky for the U.S. President’s brother much of the time, due to his chronic addiction to drink and years of drug abuse.

George now spends his time drinking what locals call Chang’aa - a spirit distilled with maize and spiked with chemicals - from the moment he wakes to the moment he slips into unconsciousness.

Laced with ethanol, embalming fluid or battery acid to give it more kick, this substance is regularly blamed for causing blindness and death when the criminal syndicates behind the trade mix it wrongly.

I track George down early one morning to find out about his life, he’s already been for a liquid breakfast at the nearest Chang?aa den, where sex with prostitutes is also on the menu in a bed kept at the back.

[George] spends virtually every day getting drunk or sleeping off the effects. So where did it all go wrong for the 30-year-old? Of course, George is following in something of a family tradition: the father he and the President share was also a notorious drunk and habitue of township Chang?aa bars.

He admits that after becoming addicted to cocaine and heroin at 17, he became an armed robber to pay for drink and drugs. Living with his ‘black brothers’ on the streets, he was jailed in 2003, accused of playing a part in an attempted armed robbery.

Abridged. Source:

And?

22

[quote]maverick88 wrote:

And?[/quote]

http://mountainrepublic.net/2010/03/02/is-obama-an-alcoholic/

23

I’ve read D’Souza’s Christian apologetics and on that basis I will say he’s an idiot. I would be skeptical of what he puts forth in this film due to his penchant for using logical fallacies.

That aside, I do want to see this movie, thanks for the link.

24

Oh boy, the co-director of this movie produced Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed - a movie that attempts to disprove evolution.

I can already tell this movie will be nothing more than propaganda

25

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I can already tell this movie will be nothing more than propaganda[/quote]

So, like every Michael Moore film?

26

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I can already tell this movie will be nothing more than propaganda[/quote]

So, like every Michael Moore film?[/quote]

Non-sequitar?

27

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I can already tell this movie will be nothing more than propaganda[/quote]

So, like every Michael Moore film?[/quote]

Non-sequitar?

[/quote]

Its the battle version of the non sequitur.

Like a verbal scimitar.

28

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I can already tell this movie will be nothing more than propaganda[/quote]

So, like every Michael Moore film?[/quote]

Non-sequitar?

[/quote]

Because Moore’s are factual, balanced looks at an issue, person or event?

29

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I can already tell this movie will be nothing more than propaganda[/quote]

So, like every Michael Moore film?[/quote]

Non-sequitar?

[/quote]

Because Moore’s are factual, balanced looks at an issue, person or event?[/quote]

That’s not what I’m saying.

I am asking you why you’re bringing up Michael Moore’s films as I don’t see how they relate to this thread.

30

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

I can already tell this movie will be nothing more than propaganda[/quote]

So, like every Michael Moore film?[/quote]

Non-sequitar?

[/quote]

Because Moore’s are factual, balanced looks at an issue, person or event?[/quote]

That’s not what I’m saying.

I am asking you why you’re bringing up Michael Moore’s films as I don’t see how they relate to this thread.

[/quote]

Did you even read the comment of yours I responded to?

If you don’t get it, nevermind, you won’t.

31

saw this film today:

other than the last 20 or so minutes where Dinesh D’Souza adds his perspective of where this is going in his second term, it is mostly just about explaining what anti-colonialism is to america so that america can recognize it. He does this primarily through interviews with people who have studied the people around Obama’s family while he was being raised. He was able to interview a couple directly.

To be honest, I am not sure where the controversy is. I think anyone who has been paying attention already knew most of this stuff.

my only real complaint is that it only went an inch thick. but i guess you can only so much from movie.

32

Cannot recommend this movie enough.

It has a conservative slant, and a touch of fear mongering, but worth the ticket price.

When you get home from the film, read up on Cloward-Piven.

33

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Cannot recommend this movie enough.

It has a conservative slant, and a touch of fear mongering, but worth the ticket price.

When you get home from the film, read up on Cloward-Piven.[/quote]Glenn Beck used to talk incessantly about Cloward and Piven.

34

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Cannot recommend this movie enough.

It has a conservative slant, and a touch of fear mongering, but worth the ticket price.

When you get home from the film, read up on Cloward-Piven.[/quote]Glenn Beck used to talk incessantly about Cloward and Piven.
[/quote]

Conservatives get a lot of shit in this country and anyone connected to Fox News gets turned into foaming mouth dog. Colleges churn out anti-capitalist by the thousands, that is where the leftests ran to after they took off the tie-dye and cut their hair when they realized after woodstock, selling people on communism isn’t going to work sitting around smoking pot all day. (I believe you touched on this before as well.)

But yeah, even if it is a conspiracy theory to think that is what our government is doing, having knowledge about it is only going to help. Because people are lying to themselves if they don’t think every congressman and every president and cabinet member hasn’t been given a memo and documentation on it.

The American people are idiots if they think the same government that houses Harry “I got mega rich using your tax dollars to buy my land” Reid has their best interests at heart.

Open question to the liberals out there:

If the poor and disenfranchised tend to vote for party A, and the upwardly mobile and rich tend to vote for party B, would it not be in the best interest of party A to keep people poor?

35

Glenn Beck was great for quite a while. He was pretty convincing on Cloward and Piven.

36

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Glenn Beck was great for quite a while. He was pretty convincing on Cloward and Piven.[/quote]

I’m glad. I will tell you, it scares the shit out of me.

37

Perhaps its time that people stopped voting for party B and A and rather opted for party C that where formed by them and controlled by them instead of proffesional politicians as of today. Further I think the proffesionalization of the politicians are very dangerous.

Historically the search for more votes have often led to more people being able to vote, wich in turn is an enhanchment of the democacry regardless of the motives of the partys. Just think of the rivalisation beetwen the liberals and the torys in england when Disraely and Gladstone led those partys. Both of the Partys lowered the criterias to be able to vote to get more voters.

38

[quote]florelius wrote:
Perhaps its time that people stopped voting for party B and A and rather opted for party C that where formed by them and controlled by them instead of proffesional politicians as of today.[/quote]

No, that is how communism starts.

I am tired of the “he can’t connect with me on a personal level” reason for not voting for someone. Because good, I doubt you or your buddies would make good presidents. The job of president takes someone who isn’t a “common man”. (That person can come from common roots, but not be a common person.)

The parties just need to be reminded we run the show. But, seeing as watching the Daily Show passes for an informed voter these days that will never happen.

The way the people effect change is to pay the fuck attention and turn off Dancing With the Stars. Force the change they want at a local level, then force it at the state level. The Federal level will catch on.

It is only dangerous because they have so much of our money and can run up so much debt.

If they didn’t have the $, all they would have left is the guns. And as long as the pinko lefties don’t repeal the second amendment, they will remain afraid to use the guns on the people. (I would imagine a lot of the soldiers would fight for the people anyway, so we’d be fighting drones and shit. Kinda like what Obama is doing to Afghanistan.)

[quote]Historically the search for more votes have often led to more people being able to vote, wich in turn is an enhanchment of the democacry regardless of the motives of the partys. Just think of the rivalisation beetwen the liberals and the torys in england when Disraely and Gladstone led those partys. Both of the Partys lowered the criterias to be able to vote to get more voters.

[/quote]

So you are saying that yes, party A would, in fact, have a vested interest in keeping the poor poor then?

39

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
Perhaps its time that people stopped voting for party B and A and rather opted for party C that where formed by them and controlled by them instead of proffesional politicians as of today.[/quote]

No, that is how communism starts.

I am tired of the “he can’t connect with me on a personal level” reason for not voting for someone. Because good, I doubt you or your buddies would make good presidents. The job of president takes someone who isn’t a “common man”. (That person can come from common roots, but not be a common person.)

The parties just need to be reminded we run the show. But, seeing as watching the Daily Show passes for an informed voter these days that will never happen.

The way the people effect change is to pay the fuck attention and turn off Dancing With the Stars. Force the change they want at a local level, then force it at the state level. The Federal level will catch on.

It is only dangerous because they have so much of our money and can run up so much debt.

If they didn’t have the $, all they would have left is the guns. And as long as the pinko lefties don’t repeal the second amendment, they will remain afraid to use the guns on the people. (I would imagine a lot of the soldiers would fight for the people anyway, so we’d be fighting drones and shit. Kinda like what Obama is doing to Afghanistan.)

[quote]Historically the search for more votes have often led to more people being able to vote, wich in turn is an enhanchment of the democacry regardless of the motives of the partys. Just think of the rivalisation beetwen the liberals and the torys in england when Disraely and Gladstone led those partys. Both of the Partys lowered the criterias to be able to vote to get more voters.

[/quote]

So you are saying that yes, party A would, in fact, have a vested interest in keeping the poor poor then?[/quote]

In reality no the Party A dont have a vested interreset in keeping the poor poor, but it sounds logical when you say it like you do, to bad it doesnt have anything with reality to do.

Regarding the other:
If I understand you correctly I think we agree in that people must participate themself in the political system instead of watching dancing with the stars as you so eloquently put it. And that a attidude towards that the politicians figure it out for us is dangerous, people must be active in political matters and one way is to form a party where the grasroot have more influence for instance. Because what I gathered as an outsider reading this forums for years is that neither the dems nor the repubs are doing a good job.

40

[quote]florelius wrote:

In reality no the Party A dont have a vested interreset in keeping the poor poor, but it sounds logical when you say it like you do, to bad it doesnt have anything with reality to do.[/quote]

Care to explain?

Just saying “it has nothing to do with reality” doesn’t really make your statement true, or add at all to the conversation.

No, you aren’t listening. This is how communism starts.

On top of the fact that the Republic is set up to accommodate what you are talking about, without having to form a “people’s party”. The system works perfect, it is the citizenry that has allowed thing to get to where they are.

[quote]Because what I gathered as an outsider reading this forums for years is that neither the dems nor the repubs are doing a good job.
[/quote]

It is largely smoke blowing. People have been bitching about government since the first day of the first government. The stakes just seem higher because we are living it and the $ amounts are more. But, all in all, this is the same shit that happened 200 years ago, 2000 years ago, and will continue for another 2000.

The beauty of the Republic is the men and women making the choices are elected and want to be elected again. So they need to be moderate, and if the people keep a good mix of both parties things should move slow and end up a good mix of two or more ideals.