Letter - ‘America,’ the movie, worth seeing

Advertisement

It’s a rare opportunity that a movie provides an unvarnished chronology of our American history pro and con, and then provides the transition to the current events as they are occurring with each passing day.

If you truly love this country, and would really like to know what the future holds for you, your children and grandchildren based on the current political direction we are headed, then the best two hours you can spend is to view the movie “America” while it is still playing in Walla Walla.

Daryl Schreiner

Walla Walla

Comments

downhillracer 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Sure, if you're prone to nonsensical conspiracy theories from this nut-job, Dsouoza is a disgraced, convicted felon with plenty of screws loose (but a favorite on Fox "News"):

http://www.vice.com/read/dinesh-dsouza-is-still-hustling-old-white-people

7

namvet60 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Only an ignorant troll put post a comment such as this.

0

downhillracer 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Anyone with a lick of smarts would have stated "..a comment such as above".

Instead, your comment takes on a hilariously Freudian twist of self-identification. Nicely done.

You may want to revisit the dictionary regarding your interpretation of the term "troll".

3

chicoli 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Downhillracer, your above comment reminds me about an unfortunate citizen back home. After hopelessly arguing a point with him it was time to dismiss the conversation with a " sorry, I'm done arguing with ignorants". This guy's defensive response reaffirmed his ignorance by answering back "the one who doesn't argue with ignorants is YOU".

0

namvet60 11 months, 3 weeks ago

LOL - where is your home paco - I hear them calling you!

2

PeggyJoy 11 months, 3 weeks ago

D'Souza boosts this ludicrous premise (Obama ran for the presidency because he hates colonialism ... just like America's founders!) using several claims that are simply not rooted in reality. A few examples:

D'Souza claims that TARP and the federal bailout were programs that "Obama launched." Both programs began under the Bush administration. D'Souza claims Obama went by the name Barack to adopt his father's "African identity," but Obama has explicitly said his name change "was not some assertion of my African roots." D'Souza insists that references in Obama speeches to a "nuclear-free world" are evidence of "anti-colonialism," but Ronald Reagan made multiple references to the same concept. D'Souza claimed that Obama supported the release of the Lockerbie bomber because he sometimes "supports the release of terrorists who claim to be fighting wars of liberation against American aggression." But the Obama administration formally opposed the release in an official letter from the State Department. D'Souza claimed that Obama referred to BP as "British Petroleum" in a May 2010 speech. He never did. And D'Souza just goes on and on, inventing incidents that never happened, making historical claims that don't match up to the facts, shoehorning these made-up stories into a false narrative of racial resentment.

It doesn't appear that D'Souza has corrected or amended his flawed premise. 2016: Obama's America is just repeating the same falsehoods with moving pictures.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/05/27/dinesh-dsouzas-lies-about-obama-now-in-movie-fo/186695

4

PearlY 11 months, 2 weeks ago

OK, now I've seen the movie.

Not a single one of PeggyJoy's "examples" in her posting above are true.

D'Souza did NOT claim TARP and the bailout were "launched" by Obama, he said they were "embraced" by Obama. And that, of course, is absolutely true.

I swear I was awake through the whole thing and paying careful attention, and I never heard D'Souza or anyone else say a word about Obama's "African identity" or a name change; he never said anything about Obama speeches referring to a "nuclear-free world," or the Lockerbie bomber, or British Petroleum. I think the only mention of nuclear bombs was when D'Souza elicited from leftist academician Ward Churchill the statement that if dropping a nuclear bomb on Hitler would have been justified had we had one in time, then dropping one on the US would be justified as well. Nothing to do with Obama (except the conclusion that having him as President doesn't earn us any points from Professor Churchill).

If the only examples she can come up with of D'Souza claims that are "not rooted in reality" are things that aren't in the movie, it's pretty clear who the liar is. Or possibly PeggyJoy is so quick to leap on some liberal blogger's talking points that she can't be bothered to worry about whether what she's saying is true or false.

1

PeggyJoy 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Clearly............You will believe anything, that is negative about Pres. Obama, Clintons, and others, that do not follow your right-wing/Tea Bagger views! Instead, of listening to Rush, Hannity, Medved, Coulter, Palin and the other nutters of the Republican Party.......TRY searching yourself for the facts for a change. I guess, that would be too much bother.

Actually, NamVet.............I really believe you and others here really dislike Pres Obama simply because the man is black. Don't deny it, because you and your friends know for a fact, that it is true.

5

barracuda 11 months, 3 weeks ago

PeggyJoy,

Nevermind....... I am deleting my original rebuttal, as clearly this is not worth time and space for a argument about a very clearly stupid comment.

2

namvet60 11 months, 3 weeks ago

The mind is a terrible thing to waste PeggyJoy but obviously "you" have succeeded.

0

PearlY 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Two can play at that game, PeggyJoy. I could say, "I really believe you and others here really disliked Mitt Romney simply because the man is Mormon. Don't deny it, because you and your friends know for a fact, that it is true."

Of course, I have no idea whether that's true or not, but what the hey? Accusing people you don't know of bigotry is such a boost to your own self-righteousness! And it sure obviates any need for you to consider others' arguments when name-calling is so much easier.

2

PearlY 11 months, 3 weeks ago

The movie industry seems to thrive on "disgraced, convicted felon" types. And some of them actually do make good movies. Haven't seen this one yet. Have you?

0

stvsngltn 11 months, 3 weeks ago

A most excellent documentary, PearlY ... highly recommend it. Very well done especially when exploring Obama's and Hillary Clinton's adoration of the likes of Saul Alinsky. Nevermind Downhill's "kill the messenger" input above ... D'Sousa's message is spot on -- happy to see this film at cinemas across the country. Only disagreed with one point he makes -- that the Civil War was fought because of slavery ... when in fact, although it was a factor, the war was fought to disallow disunion and secession and keep the nation intact (although a major factor of secession was indeed over the slavery issue and the allowance of new states to be slave holders).

1

chicoli 11 months, 3 weeks ago

A most repellent "documentary"...The "messenger" , Mr D'Souza, killed himself with his own behavior and indiscretions. He is a confirmed fraud, period! If I were a conservative (thank God I'm not) I would distance myself from this "Typhoid Mary" type of a guy. If you insist in keeping him, it's all yours, my friend!

0

PearlY 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Somehow, Paco, I doubt you 've seen it so your review of it as 'repellent' is probably based only on bigotry, and not honest analysis.

1

PeggyJoy 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Excellent! "America" is NOT factual. Documentary! "America" is nothing but Republican right-wing political propaganda. Actually D'Souza is insulting your intelligence by you believing this garbage.

0

PearlY 11 months, 3 weeks ago

And you know this because you've seen it, or because you've let your masters in the Democratic blogosphere do your thinking for you?

1

PeggyJoy 11 months, 3 weeks ago

"Disgraced, convicted felon" types! The movie industry could make billions just from the long list of Republican "disgraced, convicted felons." http://www.democratichub.com/conservative-controversies-list.aspx?ctv=scandals&gclid=CLidwrm-zb8CFUYA7AodoB8Anw

0

fatherof5 11 months, 3 weeks ago

It is somewhat embarrassing to live in a town with limited screens, where the theater management would look at the demographics and say, "Yeah, I think we might make some money on this one here."

Here is one of many, many terrible reviews: http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/review-is-dinesh-dsouzas-america-the-worst-political-documentary-of-all-time-20140630

On metacritic.com, which compiles multiple criticisms, it received a 14 out of 100, which is about as low of a score as I have ever seen. Again....embarrassing. http://www.metacritic.com/movie/america

5

PeggyJoy 11 months, 3 weeks ago

The citizens of Walla Walla should feel insulted by having the film shown there. Seems the owners of the theater really believe there are enough people, that are ignorant about the facts, and will believe D'Souoza's propaganda.

3

barracuda 11 months, 3 weeks ago

PeggyJoy.......

One of the things I like about America is that I have options.

One of them is I can stay home and not go see a movie that I think is garbage... Or I can go and support it. It is your type of thinking that can be considered censorship. If you don't like it, by all means don't go, it is that simple.

It is similar to the left trying to squash Rush and others, but clearly they have a following, otherwise they would be done! And clearly that shows that there are enough people who like conservative ways to outweigh the lefts type of thinking on this issue.

This movie is clearly making money. And that is the driver of most movies!

3

PearlY 11 months, 3 weeks ago

If it embarrasses you to live in a town whose residents might enjoy this film, there are plenty of towns on the West side of the State where you wouldn't have to rub elbows with such dregs of society. Wouldn't you be happier over there? I moved from there not too long ago, and can assure you, you'd hardly ever have to face a contrary thought. All the conservatives left there are too afraid of losing their jobs if they are outed to say much that you might find embarrassing.

0

stvsngltn 11 months, 2 weeks ago

What I find embarrassing is anyone basing the merits of a film -- good or bad-- on reviews. I like that we have a theater that shows controversial films so we can decide for ourselves whether or not we like them.

0

chicoli 11 months, 3 weeks ago

The real tittle for this "documentary" is "Obama's America" . The attendance was so dismal the promoters change the tittle to "America" to deceive liberal into seen right wing propaganda. Obama won the election after all this effort.

Mr. DeSouza is a GOP pundit and now a discredited pariah after he was indicted for fraud on voting act violations. His movie was sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, an extreme conservative group able to pay anything to anybody willing to twist historical facts in favor of conservative ideas. The Heritage Foundation was vary disappointed when discovering that Mr. D'Souza was having an affair and was to be engaged while still married. To make matters more interesting, his affair was happening while he was still promoting the sanctity of marriage as a conservative moral value.

This cynical lier, Mr. D'Souza, is capable of concocting any story to suit the buyer. But a better story is the one about the author of "America", who in his own life ends up being a fraud and a pariah.

5

namvet60 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Was Mr D'Souza in the Oval Office while having this affair and was he impeached for having this affair? Hypocrisy abounds!

0

stvsngltn 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Actually, D'Souza's first film, released in 2012, was " 2016: Obama's America. Far from experiencing dismal sales, it's the number one documentary ever on Amazon. The premise is "if Obama is re-elected to a second term, where will we be in 2016?" Well, thanks to that incompetent community organizer ( and little else in the way of experience) 2016 sure doesn't bode well. I don't agree with everything D'Souza believes but he's certainly on target regarding Obama and his "Progressive" supporters ... and about America .... as seen in his excellent book, What's So Great About America.

0

namvet60 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Watching the trailer caused me to watch the movie which is very good. I have posted a couple of websites with the first having some reviews included:

http://www.dineshdsouza.com/movies/america

This post is not religious but the reviews are good:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/dinesh-dsouzas-america-showcases-progressives-painting-an-ugly-nation-122597/

I have found that the so called indictments on Mr D'Souza were typical witch hunts by the opposing partisan party and of course with a DOJ that has tunnel vision.

1

fatherof5 11 months, 3 weeks ago

There are no real film critics in these links. The first link is D'Souza's page with links to conservative "reviewers" such as Jon Voight and Andrew Breitbart's website.

The second link goes to a review by a guy who writes anti-gay, pro-Hobby Lobby articles and who is clearly going to like any film that is anti-liberal, whether it is factual or not. Here's a link to other articles he's written. http://www.christianpost.com/author/alex-murashko/

The key in evaluating the quality of a film based on critical reviews is to find a consensus of credible ones, sort of like finding a consensus of scientists whose research supports human-caused climate change. You can always find a few dissenters, but what do the vast majority of credible people without an agenda say? The answer is that they thought this film was horrible.

3

barracuda 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Yep, that is true fatherof5..... Some are saying it is horrible....

And some are saying it is a great movie! Why is this movie making so many waves... and drawing attention? And thereby making money by attendance? Obviously there are people needing it to be a true piece....

My question is why do the mass of people attending the movie looking for a different direction in our country? They must be hungry for a change of direction.

Are the people who want to sensor it so worried that the "sheeple" will be mesmerized and like it :hook line and sinker? If this is so, they must think liberalism is not able to compare to conservatism and don't want the "sheeple" to see through the veil... Why cant they just chalk it up to be a fictional piece.

1

namvet60 11 months, 3 weeks ago

fatherof5 - I stated in the notes that they were "reviews" which were by different entities other than the biased Liberal Hollywood critics. I haven't taken any credence in these critics for years ever since they thought that Michael Moore's fantasies were great. The main reason I watch movies on a streaming device is I can read the critiques and then if I don't like it I can quit and watch something worth watching. I did go and watch this movie due to watching the trailer and found it very interesting.

Now you try and throw distractions in by stating the biased Liberal Hollywood critics are credible. (That is a joke). How about we take hypocrisy into the mix when discussing your global warming scientists. Take Tom Steyer for example, the person who made multi-billions from the building and promoting the fossil fuel industry. Now Mr Steyer is turning the other cheek and putting millions into the destruction of the fossil fuel industry by crying global warming. It's really hard to believe how some people can live with themselves - not knowing which type of life will I live today - OH wait - I'll see which side of the bed I get up on?

0

fatherof5 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Check the critics in the link. You will see they are from newspapers from all over the country. They review films professionally. They say this one sucks. There's not much to debate about that.

1

PearlY 11 months, 3 weeks ago

So now, not only science, but movies are to be decided on the basis of majority vote? I have seen dozens of movies with great reviews that I found to be trite, banal, inane, or so predictable I could practically recite the script as the actors mouthed it (Interview with a Vampire stands out for the latter; my screening partner thought I had both read the book and seen the movie before, neither of which was the case.)

Do you choose what cars you drive, what wines you drink, and what children you love on the basis of what "credible people without an agenda say" or do you allow your own ideas to emerge, ever?

1

fatherof5 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Actually, I choose my cars and make a number of other purchases by reading Consumer Reports and finding out what various experts have to say. I do that with my movies, too. In the end, it's my call, but if a preponderance of experts lean one way or another, that has an influence on me. However, I must confess to loving my children without the benefit of consultants.

0

PearlY 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Good to know you trust your own judgment about at least one thing!

0

stvsngltn 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Interesting comparison of film critics and climate scientists ..... since whether one likes a film or not and whether or not anthropogenic global warming is true isn't determined by consensus. I base my disbelief of AGW (man-caused climate change via CO2) on research in the 105 books I've studied and have because they make logical sense to me .... whether or not 1,005 books (that do not appear logical) may disagree. IOW, science is not determined by vote or consensus.

0

namvet60 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Here is a link that follows along the same conservative thought processes about the destruction of this country:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/17/an-open-letter-to-attorney-general-eric-holder-it-s-not-about-race.html

I don't believe this would make it past the Hollywood critics either.

0

pdywgn 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Chicoli-The name of the movie is America Imagine A World Without Her. That is also the title of the book. I have not seen the movie so unlike most of the left leaning usuals I won't comment on it's content, but I will say this much. Dismal failures do not stay in over 1,000 theatres. Dismal book failures do not get on the bestseller list.

0

barracuda 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Does anybody remember all of the hoopla over the Michael Moore's movie called ...... Fahrenheit 9/11 a few years ago? It was one of the most talked about and hashed over movies in recent history....

Liberals loved it. And in some circles it got great reviews. it also got terrible reviews from the right. It was right down party lines.....

Hmmm, does this sound familiar? Ever think that this is the same thing?

It seems to be what's good for the goose, is good for the gander!

2

fatherof5 11 months, 3 weeks ago

You are deflecting. The documentary in question is terrible and should be panned by anyone - right or left - who is more interested in truth than in partisan propaganda. If your political viewpoint depends upon lies and shoddy journalism for evidence, then you might want to give that some thought.

1

barracuda 11 months, 3 weeks ago

And you think Moore's movies was a good piece of Art? I too have heard about movies that are rank and stink..... Yet, some people think they are worth seeing....

My point was.... It is a persons (writer/directors) point of view!

Just as the Fahrenheit 9/11 was one persons (Michael Moore) point of view! It could be (and it was) said the Moore's movie was also partisan, stunk and spewed lies. (Albeit mostly from the right)

There was no deflection here, as I see it, no one has the right to sensor others for speech and movies. So, there are choices. If you don't like a song on a radio, change the channel, or shut it off. If you hear of a bad movie.... by all means don't go! It is your/our choice what we expose ourselves to. Eventually the movie will flounder and go away, or it could flourish and be a success, and obviously that scares some people..... As they want to take the choices away from us... ALL of us! If the left is scared to let others make up their own minds... Wow...

Time will tell if this is going to follow the Moore movie into history.

2

downhillracer 11 months, 3 weeks ago

The difference is Mr. Moore actually backed up his story with academically provable facts. This ridiculousness piece of nonsense will fade away into the obscurity of the fringe, much the way the tea party will.

0

barracuda 11 months, 3 weeks ago

You may be correct... This certainly will be a interesting time in politics....

Again my point is..... You may treat it like fiction.... but we have no right to try to sensor it! People have to do that for themselves.

1

fatherof5 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Barracuda, please point to one comment I made that suggests censorship. Theater owners have an unquestioned right to show it, and citizens have an unquestioned right to see it. I'm just pointing to some credible, objective sources who say it is a terrible piece of journalism.

I am also suggesting that if this is the best Obama's critics can do, that perhaps there isn't much substance behind all of the outrage.

0

barracuda 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Actually, the censorship issue came from two posts.... One of yours as well as a post(s) by PeggyJoy. Your post: "It is somewhat embarrassing to live in a town with limited screens, where the theater management would look at the demographics and say, "Yeah, I think we might make some money on this one here."

The statement by PeggyJoy: "The citizens of Walla Walla should feel insulted by having the film shown there. "

I take this to mean.... If certain people do not like a movie or it's content... it should not be shown here in WW.

My take on this theory?.... Ok, here is a example of what it sounds like PeggyJoy is getting at: lets say I don't like Star Wars, so I don't want WW to show it? That is censorship!

2

fatherof5 11 months, 3 weeks ago

I understand better what you mean. I believe (and I bet PeggyJoy does too) that having multiple voices and perspectives - left or right - on our local screens is healthy. What is not healthy for our community is when voices with such low ethical and journalistic standards get air time. It's sort of like the debate Oprah, Phil, and some of those other talk show hosts used to have about whether to invite KKK members onto their shows. What they're spewing is crap, and the 1st Amendment protects their right to spew it, but that doesn't necessarily make it wise for shows to have them on as guests. The way we influence those shows is by choosing not to watch them. We can do that with films, too.

As a theater owner, one consideration is certainly money. What films will be profitable? But some films are so vulgar or without merit that it's a shame when they get much air time. And it works both ways. I've seen a number of great films and documentaries in Seattle that never made it out here. I wish they would, but the demographics are different. Theater owners exercise censorship all the time. It's their job.

0

fatherof5 11 months, 3 weeks ago

By the way, since you wish to continue to bring up Michael Moore, professional film critics across the country gave it a 67/100 on Metacritic.com, as compared to a 14/100 for the Obama film. Not a ringing endorsement, but still a significant difference from the perspective of folks whose job it is to objectively review the quality of films and documentaries. Here's the link: http://www.metacritic.com/movie/fahrenheit-911

I would personally recommend "Sicko," which scored a 74/100 (http://www.metacritic.com/movie/sicko). This film illustrates the need for much of the change that was built into the Affordable Care Act.

1

PearlY 11 months, 3 weeks ago

I saw "Sicko." Now THERE'S a terrible film. If it scored 74/100 that proves to me that the critical establishment is nuts.

0

PearlY 11 months, 3 weeks ago

You know, I'm pretty sure you're a smart guy, but it's amusing to see how little insight you have into your own biases. Maybe it's because I've always had to invest my own retirement funds, but I've never been able to afford to be blind to my own biases the way you are. The silver lining for me in the destruction Obama is bringing to the country is that I've invested on the premise that he would win each election (although I voted and contributed against him) and that he would do as he has done. If I have to hate to be right, at least I can make a little money off of it..

0

fatherof5 11 months, 3 weeks ago

PearlY, the irony in your claim to be able to see beyond your biases is in your very next sentence where you write about "the destruction Obama is bringing to the country...." You write it as if this is a known fact, whereas most of the people I know view Obama as having fended off a do-nothing, obstructionist, uncompromising Congress for much of his time in office, and yet has still managed to walk us back from the ledge we found ourselves on back in 2008 and 2009. Unemployment was over 10% when the stimulus kicked in. The stock market had plummeted. The housing industry had been devastated. The deficit was heading toward $1.5 billion, our auto industry was dying, and we were mired in two wars. Again, despite little help from Congress, we are in better shape now and have begun to address our healthcare woes. Is it possible your biases don't allow you to see some of these successes?

Now, unemployment is just about under 6%, stocks have soared, the housing industry is rebounding (albeit slowly), the deficit has been more than cut in half, the US auto industry is much healthier, and we are almost out of those wars. We've still got plenty of problems with income inequality, low wages, folks who have given up looking for work, our slow response to climate change, the high cost of healthcare, and so on, but it's hard to look objectively at where we are now and describe it as "destruction Obama (has brought) to the country."

1

namvet60 11 months, 3 weeks ago

fatherof5 - in regards to your last paragraph you might read the U-B editorial of Sunday July 20, 2014 entitled "Fast-growing US debt can't be ignored". It is rather obvious if you read it - the point being by 2039 this country will be past the point of no return.

That may not be in the scientists or critics choice but it is a fact.

0

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Namvet, you must be pleased then that our president has more than cut the deficit in half. If we could just repeal a few of those tax cuts for the wealthy, eliminate some corporate tax loopholes, and invest in our economic growth, we might get to a surplus before too long.

0

namvet60 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Now to believe that the current President has cut the budget in half with the country $17 Trillion in debt - is a lesson only a Liberal could find entertaining . . . . . . . . . . . . .

0

PearlY 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I have now twice refuted your argument that Obama "cut the deficit in half" yet you continue to use it. It is at best a disingenuous argument, or more bluntly, a dishonest one.

That it has taken six years to bring our unemployment rate down by two points, and only at the cost of moving millions out of the labor market altogether, is hardly resounding evidence of successful policy-making.

Obama "saved" the auto industry by skinning its creditors and bondholders to throw a bone to his union-boss cronies. If only Calvin Coolidge had thought of that, we'd probably still have vibrant ice-box and horse-buggy industries. Argentina and Venezuela handle their economic problems this way, and now we do too. Nifty.

You and I and 85% of the country had few or no "health care woes" before Obamacare. The hands dealt to various players have changed, but every benefit someone received from Obamacare has come at the expense of someone else. There's been no net improvement, and because of the inherent inefficiencies of a command-and-control system there are net damages.

Sure, we were "mired" in two wars (and when, pray tell, is any war not a "mire"). After six years of Obama's unintelligible foreign policy, many if not most of the hard-won gains in Iraq and Afghanistan have been lost and we face a Middle East that is possibly in the worst shape it's ever been, a new Cold War with Russia (that Reset button of Hillary's apparently was not wired correctly), a multi-hundred-thousand invasion on our Southern border, and zero respect from either our dwindling allies or our invigorated enemies.

Our "surging" stock market combined with the negative real returns available on savings is in fact one of the prime indicators of our troubles. The market needs some risk takers, but when everybody is forced to be one or lose their capital to inflation, it is NOT a good thing.

Yeah, our big problems now are "income inequality" and climate change, you say. If I believed in God, I would pray morning and night that you are right.

2

barracuda 11 months, 3 weeks ago

By the way..... You again are not looking at my statements, It was not about the quality of Moore's film, and/or the quality of this movie. It was the fact that there is a double standard in what is perceived as acceptable to show here in WW.

And please don't insult us and tell us your statements were based of quality content of the movie only. It had to do with the type of content too..........

2

fatherof5 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Film critics don't just evaluate documentaries on the quality of their film-making - though that is a component. They also comment on the quality of the arguments. If you read the reviews, that's a major reason why most critics hated this film.

As for the quality of Michael Moore's arguments, I tend to agree with many of his opinions, so yes, I have that bias, but I have also read a number of credible sources to back it up. In "Sicko," for example, if Moore were finding extremely rare examples of people with pre-existing conditions who were unable to get health insurance, and then presenting that to his audience as a common occurrence, then that argument would lack integrity. But in fact, the people he interviewed who couldn't find insurance were just like millions of others with similar stories. I've read the statistics. Moore was shining a light on some of the very dark shadows in our health care system.

0

barracuda 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Fatherof5.... Your line: "I've read the statistics. Moore was shining a light on some of the very dark shadows in our health care system."

Again, he might have been doing just that.... and showing them to us through his point of view.........

0

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

There is no doubt Moore has a point of view. I just didn't see anything in "Sicko" that contradicted statistics I've seen elsewhere. It illustrated that for all the money we throw at healthcare in America, we struggle to compete with many other developed nations when it comes to access, affordability, and outcomes.

I grant that Moore does have a way of making a spectacle sometimes, which I think angers his critics. I felt uneasy when he confronted an elderly and overmatched Charlton Heston in "Bowling for Columbine," even though the points Moore was making about gun violence and children was valid. "Sicko" was pretty factually grounded, as far as I could tell. "Fahrenheit 911" engaged in more speculation and "gotcha" moments as I recall, but it's been many years since I've seen it.

0

barracuda 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I can only speak to Fahrenheit 911, as I couldn't sit through any others of his movies.

0

PearlY 11 months, 3 weeks ago

You say the documentary in question is terrible. Have you seen it or are you relying on the reviews which you have to admit are likely to reflect the liberal biases of the Hollywood establishment?

1

fatherof5 11 months, 3 weeks ago

I have not seen it. I am relying on interviews I've heard and articles I've read. I would see a documentary that challenged my positions if it were done by a serious scholar or journalist, and have done so in the past, but this guy is pretty far below that standard.

0

NewInWW 11 months, 3 weeks ago

You've made this "have you seen it" point several times in this thread.

Perhaps unlike you, I don't need to eat a turd sandwich to know it's not good. I base that conclusion on my prior experience with turds as well as the overwhelming opinions of those I trust about turds. None of us think they'd make a good sandwich.

I see no reason to pay good money to buy a turd sandwich only to confirm what I already know - they are not, as Alton Brown would say, "Good Eats."

0

PearlY 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Yes, I understand perfectly. I used to have an uncle who felt the same way about blacks, Hispanics, Filipinos and all food with "foreign" spices in it. All he needed to know was the label and his mind was made up on the spot.

2

NewInWW 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Nice little misdirection play - equating my ability to discern trash with your uncle's racism.

Perhaps the fruit didn't fall so far from the tree after all, as you seem unable to support any cause that promotes justice, equal treatment or equal opportunity.

Your uncle would be proud.

1

PearlY 11 months, 2 weeks ago

My uncle (by marriage, so no tree/fruit at work) found my involvement in the civil rights and women's rights movements of the late 60s appalling, but we both had better manners than to call each other names.

But what am I doing? I'd already decided you were a waste of thought. I'll let you have the last word:

1

namvet60 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Michael Moore is the largest hypocrite from the minute he wakes up until the moment he puts his obese body back to bed. He is a multi-millionaire posing as an Occupy Wall Street Protester activist is pathetic. This is a link to his obsessions:

http://www.mooreexposed.com/

He also lacks enough sense to come in out of the rain.

2

VampireNinja 11 months, 3 weeks ago

It sounds like I need to see this flick so I can figure out whether I'm liberal or conservative.

0

pdywgn 11 months, 3 weeks ago

fatherof5-You say that you would watch a film that challenged your views if it was done by a serious scholar. Dinesh D'Souza has almost an identical education background as Barrack Obama except of course the graduating with honors from Harvard and the fact it is actually documented. You quote Michael Mooreand yet he dropped out of UofM Flint after one year. You said you would watch it if it was done by a serious scholar so enjoy the movie. Then post some first hand knowledge. I plan on watching it tomorrow.

0

pdywgn 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Correction, it wasn't Harvard it was Dartmouth.

0

PearlY 11 months, 3 weeks ago

fatherof5 probably isn't aware of this, but I suspect his definition of "serious scholar" is tautological - a conservative scholar, being wrong by virtue of being conservative, couldn't possibly be a 'serious' scholar.

I'll be making an exception to my general rule against spending $$ at movies to see something I can see eventually on Hulu or Amazon Prime, and going to see this today. I don't expect to like it much, since pretty much all commercially viable 'documentaries' nowadays are propaganda pieces and I don't enjoy propaganda even if it favors my views. But I'll at least be able to express an informed opinion about it - possibly the only one on this forum unless pdywgn reports back too.

0

PearlY 11 months, 3 weeks ago

Will do. But having now looked at what else is playing here in town, I have to say this looks like it might be the best thing showing no matter how bad it is. You were talking about being embarrassed that America was showing here in town. If I were inclined to that reaction, I'd be embarrassed by the rest of it. What a bunch of trash!

0

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Well, there is something we agree on. I also looked at the movies that are playing today - and will likely see "America" - albeit begrudgingly. Outside of "Planet of the Apes," which is pretty good for its genre, the rest of the films look awful.

On a side note, if it ever comes to Walla Walla, let me suggest "Boyhood" as a film to see. It was shot over the course of TWELVE years with the same cast growing older along with their characters. It focuses on a 6-year-old boy who is 18 by the end of the film. With 38 reviews, it has scored a 99/100 on metacritic.com, which is higher than I've ever seen for a film. Here's the link: http://www.metacritic.com/movie/boyhood

0

PearlY 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Having seen "America" this afternoon, I have mixed feelings. On my return home, I did read the Forbes review, and shared a few of his criticisms.

Notably, the intro, where Washington is shot down in battle, seemed a little juvenile and was never really tied in to the rest of the show. It gave the impression that the film was going to take an "alternate future" approach, but that never materialized.

I thought D'Souza fairly stated, or rather, allowed their advocates to fairly state, the criticisms of America leveled by the left. The Forbes reviewer called these "myths" about America and D'Souza's effort to debunk them a noble one, but discounted the importance of that because, as he said, nobody believes those myths anyway. I have to say that's not my experience. I've talked to a fair number of recent high school grads and college students, and I'd say those myths are taken as Gospel truth by most of them, although the view is held lightly by most. Those myths, however, were basic to the Occupy movement of a few years back, and held very strongly by a significant subset of the Millenials.

A lot of the Forbes reviewer's other criticisms seemed to me overblown, or at least, he read more in to various segments of the movie than I thought were there. And other "criticisms" seemed to have nothing to do with the movie. It is certainly a fair statement that a major reason Obama won election in 2008 is because the Republicans did not put up a forceful advocate of a counter-position in McCain, but I honestly didn't see anything in the movie that argued otherwise.

I found about 75% of the movie interesting and engaging. I don't recall any actual historical inaccuracies, although certainly there was some tendentious presentations of historically accurate facts.

But can we just be honest here and admit that no political documentary today is likely to be commercially viable and also fairly present every side of the numerous complicated issues involved? Both Moore and D'Souza are propagandists. Propaganda, as long as it's not state-sponsored, is a perfectly legitimate enterprise, and D'Souza's effort has enough to engage and entertain as well as inform (albeit in a biased way) to make it worth watching for conservatives, independents, moderates and the politically unengaged. Died-in-the-wool liberals will probably hate it, but then I hated Moore's efforts, while recognizing their success as propaganda. Rotten Tomatoes lists audience approval rating on "America" at 89%, so apparently it is attracting the audiences it aimed for and pleasing them.

I'll look for "Boyhood." Sounds interesting.

0

namvet60 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Maybe the majority of the "movie critics" should have watched the movie before making there ratings?

0

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Having now seen it, I agree with many of your observations, though not surprisingly, we differ on some. I'll try to share more on a new thread below when I have time later today.

0

downhillracer 11 months, 3 weeks ago

"and the fact it is actually documented".

Exactly why a) your 'review' of this film wont carry any weight, and b) comments like the above demonstrate this is reaching it's target demographic.

0

fatherof5 11 months, 3 weeks ago

pdywgn, people can become scholarly with a limited formal education, just as people with impressive degrees can be con artists.

Here are three more links from non-liberal sources to add to this conversation:

  1. You alluded to Obama's undocumented educational history. Here's a factcheck.org report on that: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/obamas-sealed-records/

  2. A strong critic of Obama's in The Weekly Standard, a magazine consistently critical of Obama, nonetheless acknowledges Obama's Magna Cum Laude grad status from Harvard Law and how well he was viewed there: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/316vvyov.asp

  3. More germaine to the conversation is this review from an Obama critic who found "America" to be dishonest in a number of ways. Here is his review from a very conservative, yet intellectually honest perspective: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2014/07/20/dinesh-dsouzas-america-will-have-some-conservatives-yearning-for-michael-moores/

2

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Okay, I saw it. More tomorrow. :)

0

namvet60 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Well I can see that if you didn't like "America - What we do without her", you will really enjoy the trailer to the next film to hit the theatres:

Hope you enjoy . . . . . . . . . .

0

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Well, namvet, the content of the video looks pretty awful, but I will give you credit for posting a video. I'm not sure I know how to do that. :)

0

PeggyJoy 11 months, 1 week ago

Movie Review: There’s No Place Like Utopia. AKA: Joel Gilbert Walks Places.

This film isn’t just terrible for a low budget documentary, it would be a terrible for a low budget Youtube video. The only person I suggest take the time out of their life to watch this piece of dog manure is a leftist like myself who likes to laugh at ignorant ramblings of delusional rich people with too much time on their hands and of course 700 Club viewers.

http://thatguyyouhate.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/movie-review-theres-no-place-like-utopia-aka-joel-gilbert-walks-places/

Radio talk show host nutter Alex Jones likes this movie, so that alone will tell anyone, what a piece of rot gut this film is.

0

pdywgn 11 months, 2 weeks ago

fatherof5-Glad you saw it/You kept your word. I appreciate that! I watched it today.

0

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Well, I tried to go in with an open mind, but the metaphor I came up with was like going to the dentist: you know if you just sit there for an hour or two you will most likely still be alive at the end. :)

I did try, though.

I took two pages of notes on a legal pad, which isn't easy in the dark. I relied on blind muscle memory and hoped my scribblings would be legible later.

The positives:

The production values are decent and Mr. D'Sousa successfully presents himself as the calm, reasoned, open-minded character in the story. The music does its job. It swells when we are supposed to feel patriotic, and it tenses up when we see pictures of Obama or any of the other godless radicals. (Most documentaries - left or right - use this technique to manipulate their audiences.)

The negatives:

I'm not saying this to be hyperbolic, but there is literally way too much to write here. If I were to focus in on three criticisms, it would be these:

First, D'Sousa explains how liberals view America as a thief, a bully, an imperialist, etc. (slavery, genocide, invasions, and so on). Then he interviews a few radical lefties, most of them probably out of context (but one who wouldn't mind dropping a bomb on America), and the implication is that THIS is how liberals think.

Second, after falsely establishing how liberals think, he proceeds to use a few anecdotal examples to explain how the slaves and the Indians, etc. didn't really have it as bad as we've been led to believe. And besides, they have casinos now.

Third, he explains how Saul Alinsky was a disciple of the mob and of Lucifer, and that Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama are disciples of Alinsky. So, if a=b and b=c then a=c, right? (I saw it as the communicative property of community organizers.) His initial assumptions are sketchy and the conclusions he draws from them are worse, and frankly, silly.

In reality, the liberals I know have a complex view of America and its history. Even though Obama has spoken glowingly of "American Exceptionalism," most of us see the good and the bad and all of the stuff in between. We are proud of our nation's prosperity, our philanthropy and our ideals, but we lament the ways in which our nation has not always lived up to these ideals: Angry mobs shouting at buses of immigrant children, wars started through manipulated intelligence, science-denying politicians, powerful lobbyists crafting our nation's laws, etc..

Yes, we differ with conservatives on the role of government, on tax policy, on many social issues, and so on, but we aren't worshipers of Satan yearning for a godless, communist, totalitarian state. Nope, no one I know wants anything remotely like that.

But this documentary paints liberals as people I don't even recognize. By definition, then, this film is one giant straw man argument. I'd despise liberals too if we were as awful as is depicted by D'Sousa. But we bear little resemblance to his caricature.

0

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Sorry for the length. If it's any consolation, I left out a lot. :)

0

PearlY 11 months, 2 weeks ago

You contend that D'Souza "falsely established how liberals think" by quoting radical leftists. Did he truly or falsely establish how radical leftists think? Because that's who he was attacking in this movie.

You must have seen a different movie than I saw if you thought he was suggesting that Native Americans and slaves "didn't have it as bad as we've been led to believe." What he did do is remind us that America's grievous sins were not unique to this country, while our efforts to redeem ourselves were. It's easy to note that Britain abolished slavery before the US did, but then, by the time Britain abolished it, it was substantially out of the slave trade and had no powerful countervailing forces to contend with. The United States didn't establish slavery in this country, but it did set in place the ethos that led to its abolition at huge cost "four score and seven years" later.

D'Souza was trying to make the point, which the left in general tends to ignore, that what is "exceptional" about America is not, as you put it, our prosperity, philanthropy or even our "ideals" but the change America brought about in the very concept of conflict, ultimately replacing the "conquest ethic" as D'Souza calls it, with a new vision.

Most of the people I know well are liberals, fatherof5, and this film accurately describes about a third of them (and no, not as Satan-worshipers, which you know darn well he didn't say). But that third is by far the most politically active and evangelistic. Moreover, of those in academia and in government, the description is probably accurate for more than half, and they carry a disproportionate weight.

I believe you, and I know most of my liberal friends, don't "want" a totalitarian state or "anything remotely like that." But your difference with conservatives on "the role of government, on tax policy, on many social issues" is that you are comfortable with the role of government being paramount in virtually all things, in the implementation of which you readily accept whatever degree of coerciveness is needed.

If you went to the grocery store and the government insisted that, in order to buy some chicken for your family's dinner you also had to buy broccoli and apples, would that be totalitarian? To me it would, and to me, that's what the ACA did. Broccoli and apples may be healthy for most people, but it's simply not the government's job to force us to do things even if they might, on average, be healthier. Granted, it's a benevolent despotism, and until they start shooting the objectors, seemingly benign. But differences on "the role of government" are, in fact, hugely important. And just because you don't recognize yourself as tolerant of despotism, doesn't mean others might not see you that way.

2

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

D'Sousa does make the arguments you are suggesting regarding the darker parts of our history, but my criticism is that in doing so he is also dismissive of the magnitude and legacy of those events. For example, he shows us that white indentured servants worked alongside black slaves. Sure, they were freed after seven years, but not all of them survived long enough to be freed, he argues. The implication being that their descendants turned out okay, so why can't black people? What he leaves out is the whole system of Jim Crow laws and much more.

Then he shows us a black woman 100+ years ago who became a millionaire, as if to say: "See, black people could find the American dream, too, if they would only apply themselves." Again, he gives us images of this happy, benevolent black woman and whitewashes the degree to which the cards have been systematically stacked against them for generations.

As for his depictions of liberals, the dominant moments are of that kooky guy hesitating regarding whether or not he would bomb America, a Native American woman who (understandably from her perspective) regrets the establishment of the U.S., and then Obama and Sen. Warren - amid dark, scary music - being taken out of context regarding the "You didn't build that" sentiment. (The rest of the context from both has consistently been that the entrepreneurial spirit is an integral part of the success of America, but that the success of those individuals is aided greatly by our collectively having created a system of laws, roads, protections, education, etc. whereby they might thrive.) Later, D'Sousa goes right from Alinsky's admiration of Lucifer to Hilary's and Obama's admiration of Alinsky.

The line he is trying to draw there is pretty obvious, and I take issue with it. This is his characterization of liberalism in America. I know of zero elected Democrats who would hesitate regarding whether or not to bomb our country, and so on. Our nuts exist, but we don't elect many of them. Republicans, on the other hand, now have Ted Cruz, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, and a host of other radicals, who would have been laughed off the Republican stage 30 years ago. The reasonable ones like G. H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, Alan Simpson, etc. could no longer get past the primaries.

I don't disagree with your characterization of what you saw in the film. That's all there. But my criticism is that there is more there than just that.

0

PearlY 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Maybe it's really NOT there. Some of what you're criticizing in the movie is not in the script, but in the inferences you choose to draw from it. You draw those inferences because you assume that's how conservatives think. Since I know most of us DON'T think that way, I draw different inferences. (I may also draw different inferences from the Lucifer reference because of what I remember of my Milton.)

You don't elect many of your nuts? Then who's been running Detroit, New Orleans, Chicago, DC, and just about every single other dysfunctional city in the country, not to mention the great state of California which is circling the drain as we speak? Which reminds me of Rod Blagojevich. Which reminds me of Edwin Edwards, although he hasn't been elected lately. And how about (just off the top of my head) past and current Congresscritters Jim Traficant, Dennis Kucinich, Maxine Waters, Jesse Jackson Jr., Andrew Weiner, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Mel Reynolds, Jim McDermott, Alcee Hastings, David Wu, John Edwards (who, granted, hid it well for a long time), Phil Hare, Hank ("will Guam tip over") Johnson, Pete Stark, William Jefferson, and if we're talking "radicals", there are dozens of Democrats in Congress who have never found an expansion of government power and (except for the military) an expansion of the government's budget that they don't insist is absolutely critical.

0

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Democrats have their share of criminals, like Blagojevich, and John Edwards and Andrew Weiner turned out to be narcissistic creeps. I'll give you that. But the Bill Ayers types we do not elect - or if so, rarely.

Dennis Kucinich was to the Democratic party what Ron Paul was to the Republican party: representatives of a highly principled, non-violent, but more extreme version of their party's core values.

I will also acknowledge that both parties have historically had some pretty strange characters, extremists, perverts, criminals, etc. get elected from time to time. The distinction I am trying to make is that the ones with far-out views used to be rarities, particularly in national offices, for both parties. The Democrats haven't changed much in the past 20 years. In fact, they may have drifted a bit more centrist. The Republican party, however, has largely been radicalized. I truly believe that Reagan could never get through the Republican primary process today with his record on tax hikes and his views on moderate gun control. The party is driving out all of its moderation in favor of uncompromising, far right, evangelistic, science-denying, Obama-obsessed, Fox-worshiping crazies. Ted Cruz is now a leader in that party, which should be evidence enough.

0

PearlY 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I was unaware that the Republicans have elected a single person who detonated bombs and instigated riots to advance his political views the way Ayers did. I'm also unaware that we've elected anybody whose campaign for his first political office was launched at a gathering at the home of such an individual, the way Obama's was.

It's ridiculous to compare Ted Cruz to Bill Ayers, but it is typical of the overblown reaction of many liberals to anybody who forcefully advances conservative positions.

It's ironic you would offer Reagan as a conservative who was NOT "far-out" in his views and was NOT "radical," because those are exactly the charges that were leveled against him by Democrats back then. Reagan would have no trouble getting through a Republican primary today, and his views were not significantly different from Ted Cruz's.

0

PearlY 11 months, 2 weeks ago

As I was thinking more about your remark about the implication of D'Souza's portrayal of the black millionaire, it occurs to me to ask, if it indeed WAS his intended implication that "blacks can find the American dream, if they only apply themselves", what exactly is it about that statement that is intolerable to so many liberals? The opposite statement, that no matter how hard they apply themselves, the American dream is completely unachievable for any black person, is obviously false, isn't it? If you were a black parent, is that what you would tell your child - that no matter how hard she works, how intelligent she is, how good a grounding you give her in education, character, etc., she has no future? Or perhaps you would tell her that her only future is political activism. Isn't that convenient for the Left? Black surgeons, black software developers, black McDonald's franchisees, they aren't 'authentic' unless they contribute generously to liberal candidates.

Is it unfair that many blacks in this country have fewer economic, educational and cultural resources for success than many whites? Yes. But there's never been and never will be a "fair" distribution of attributes helpful to success, whether it be brains, beauty, health, temperament, drive, whatever. It might be true that society can give some help to those who lack some of those things, but it's also true that nobody gets "boosted" to success without making a very strong commitment of whatever resources they DO have, and people don't make commitments if they see no hope and are given a ready outside blame-catcher as an excuse for all their failures.

If you've ever read the Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, you probably remember his conclusion about what his life of slavery would have been like if he'd never been sent to Baltimore. But I remember thinking his life still would have been like that, even in Baltimore, if he hadn't been ingenious enough to trick neighborhood boys into teaching him to read and write and hadn't preserved his determination to be free. You will draw the implication from that that I think people who don't similarly pull themselves up by their bootstraps deserve what they get. Wrong. I'm saying that if I were a slave, I'd be aided far more by knowing Douglass's story than by all the compassion, sympathy, "programs" and excuses today's liberals could come up with for me. Tragically, most Democrat strongholds don't teach their children (of any race) to read well enough to read Douglass today

0

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I agree with you here. The point I was attempting to make was that D'Sousa's anecdote of a very rare black female millionaire was - in my view - his way of negating or countering the other very legitimate complaints blacks have had regarding the discriminatory laws and practices they have faced since the end of slavery. I'm not calling for reparations or anything like that, and I DO agree with you that ALL children must be taught they can do or become anything they want; however, the legacy of past racial abuses (and some that is ongoing) has not yet fully passed. There is still work to be done on that front, which I sense that D'Sousa would rather not acknowledge.

It is like showing us the one scientist who is skeptical of global warming and not bothering to interview the 99 who have come to a different conclusion. It's an intentional distortion.

0

pdywgn 11 months, 2 weeks ago

fatherof5-You now have first hand knowledge! You have now seen the movie, therefore you can comment on it! I got a different take. It was a Pro/Con film where in The current President played a minor role and it had more to do with the difference between the history of the U.S. in all it's conflicts and other countries and peoples that have prospered by originally having conflicts with us including the American Indian/African Americans/and dare I say The Irish!!

0

stvsngltn 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Well said, pdywgn. Actually, this discussion is very interesting -- especially the in-depth observations by both fatherof5 and PearlY. One little point from me: I didn't notice any real connections made between the Left and Lucifer ... other than perhaps the fact that Alinsky dedicated his Rules for Radicals to him. I do have the book, which is also dedicated to two others, Rabbi Hillel and Thomas Paine, along with short quotes by each. The dedication to Lucifer is actually humorous. It reads: "Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to Know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- Or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer."

0

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

stvsngltn, I've found it to be an interesting discussion, too. Regarding the Lucifer reference, allow me to point to a quote from Mr. Buchanan's letter to the editor just the other day (Border Crisis Created by Obama).

Buchanan wrote that Obama's actions are "beyond normal politics, but would delight Saul Alinksy, who wrote Rules for Radicals, President Obama’s guidebook as a community organizer. (The book was dedicated to Lucifer, the devil.)" Then Buchanan made other references to the D'Sousa work.

D'Sousa's Lucifer reference was subtle, but the connection to Obama was obviously not lost on Mr. Buchanan, as demonstrated by his use of it in his letter.

You probably didn't notice it because you are smart enough to have dismissed it as absurd, but not everyone will (or did) do this.

0

PearlY 11 months, 2 weeks ago

fatherof5, I promise not to hold you as a liberal responsible for whatever Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and other liberal pontificators say (and I'll even throw in Joe Biden), if you'll promise not to hold us conservatives responsible for what Pat Buchanan and other conservative pontificators say.

1

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

That's fair, though I like Rachel Maddow and wouldn't mind being associated with her. Chris Matthews, though, is a blowhard. The Buchanan to whom I was referring was our own Craig Buchanan, who occasionally writes letters to the U-B.

0

stvsngltn 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I've always considered Pat Buchanan (certainly not Craig) a blowhard and certainly cannot stand Maddow's clever but extreme far-left rhetoric. What say we all shake hands and agree to exile both to, say, Bangladesh?

0

PearlY 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Steve, Bangladesh has been a pretty good ally to America. It doesn't deserve to be saddled with the likes of either of those folks. If we send them to Nauru, though, they'll have to deal with each other, which should be punishment enough.

0

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

We've discussed on this thread how polarizing political documentaries can be. I'd like to suggest that you all check out Robert Reich's "Inequality for All," as I believe - while it does take a position - that it is intentionally not polarizing and is certainly scholarly. You may or may not agree with it, but I think you would find it at least to be intellectually competent. I thought it did a great job of boiling down some of our core economic anxieties that most Americans feel.

It streams on Netflix. Here's a link. http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70267834?trkid=7808591

0

PearlY 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I don't get Netflix but I'll watch it on Amazon Prime. I'll even spring for paying for it, since you forked over some dough on "America." Having read Reich's frequent guest columns in the Wall Street Journal for years, though, I'm pretty sure that I will only find it intellectually competent if the honesty factor isn't counted. Reich has always seemed like one of the smartest and most intellectually dishonest people around.

That being said, to the extent that his thesis has to do with the challenges facing the middle class today, I don't disagree with it. Americans have every right to be anxious about our economy. (Although, and I don't mean this in a good way, I suspect those anxieties will seem laughably trivial in 10-15 years, if not sooner.)

Reich and I will probably differ, though, on the causes and solutions to those anxieties, and the relevance of "inequality" to either. I'll watch it tonight. Have to haul my creaky bones off now to do a project I'd be hiring some young person to do if I had fewer anxieties about the future of our economy ;-)

0

fatherof5 11 months, 1 week ago

A post today from Robert Reich, whom I believe to be intellectually honest:

"You’d think I’d declared myself a Republican. Since I said yesterday on ABC’s “This Week” that I was impressed with much of Representative Paul Ryan's discussion paper on "Expanding Opportunity in America,” many have accused me of selling out to the devil. Can we get a grip? Unlike Ryan's previous proposals, this one doesn’t cut a dollar from programs for the poor; in fact, it expands the Earned Income Tax Credit – a wage subsidy for low-wage workers. It gives states more discretion for how they use money for the poor, but it’s not a block grant: State plans would still have to be approved by the federal government, and they’d have to monitor various measures of success -- families lifted out of poverty, percentage of people finding work or getting off assistance, growth in wages, high school graduation rates and so on. The proposal puts attention where it belongs -- on poverty and upward mobility for those at the bottom.

"I know, I know. State governments unsympathetic to the poor have too often syphoned off federal money for other purposes. And look at all the Republican state governments that refuse to expand their Medicaid programs under the Affordable Care Act, even though federal taxpayers will foot nearly the entire cost. But the Ryan plan at least offers a starting point for discussion. Have we become so polarized and distrustful we can’t even talk?"

0

stvsngltn 11 months, 2 weeks ago

On the suggestion that the current border crisis being created by the Obama administration, there is in fact an interesting article from Accuracy in Media entitled "Evidence Mounts of a Manufactured Border Crisis", dated July 17. (I know ... AIM is considered an "evil propaganda- generating group" by the Left.) It claims that back in January the administration put out an ad asking for contractors to handle an influx of 65,000 children. "The surge to 60,000 represent "only about 20% of the total illegal immigrants who have come into this country since April." There's much more -- the print version of the piece can be found at: www.aim.org/aim-column/evidence-mount...

0

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I read it. The majority of the sources are right wingers like Sean Hannity, The Blaze, Breitbart, etc. The most damning evidence seems to be this vague statement by a Blaze reporter, who writes about an early 2014 government bid for a contractor to transport up to 65,000 children: “The surge to 60,000 or so children seen this year was said to catch many off guard, especially since just 6,500 children entered the U.S. as early as 2011,” reported Pete Kasperowicz for The Blaze.

It "was said to catch many off guard." So in other words, the fact that one agency apparently began in January to recognize and plan for the oncoming immigration influx is evidence that the Obama administration has intentionally manufactured this crisis. How do we know it was manufactured? Because it "was said to have caught many off guard." Again, note the words, "was said," and the word, "many." This is terrible journalism. "Was said" by whom? Who is "many"?

This appears to me to be nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

0

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I read it. The majority of the sources are right wingers like Sean Hannity, The Blaze, Breitbart, etc. The most damning evidence seems to be this vague statement by a Blaze reporter, who writes about an early 2014 government bid for a contractor to transport up to 65,000 children: “The surge to 60,000 or so children seen this year was said to catch many off guard, especially since just 6,500 children entered the U.S. as early as 2011,” reported Pete Kasperowicz for The Blaze.

It "was said to catch many off guard." So in other words, the fact that one agency apparently began in January to recognize and plan for the oncoming immigration influx is evidence that the Obama administration has intentionally manufactured this crisis. How do we know it was manufactured? Because it "was said to have caught many off guard." Again, note the words, "was said," and the word, "many." This is terrible journalism. "Was said" by whom? Who is "many"?

Sorry, but this appears to me to be nothing more than a conspiracy theory.

1

fatherof5 11 months, 2 weeks ago

I apparently liked what I wrote so much that I had to post it twice. Sorry about that.

1

stvsngltn 11 months, 2 weeks ago

Well, that link didn't seem to work. If interested anyone can just Google the title.

0

PeggyJoy 11 months, 1 week ago

Papantonio: America Too Stupid For Its Own Good http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFHKl-...

Pap and Seder: The Dumbing Down of America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQkZFk...

Papantonio: Republicans Are Making Congress Stupid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmHNRD...

Papantonio: Republicans Obsessed With Burying Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19nkN_...

0

barracuda 11 months, 1 week ago

Question......... With all of the anti-movie from PeggyJoy, I haven't seen whether or not she has seen this movie. If not, maybe she should see it. It would make her more credible. As of now, as I see it, she just uses someone else's opinion.

Every one should check out the "other" side before making some a truly informed statement about any movie. I for example watch some "news" on CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox. And I listen to some AM talk radio, PBS etc. .... only then can I feel I can make a truly informed decision about todays news, entertainment etc. Sometimes just listening to one channel makes your views very narrow!

1

namvet60 11 months ago

This is not hard to believe:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/08/04/america-laps-michael-moore

Who woulda thunk? Does this make the "critics" eat there words?

0

downhillracer 11 months ago

No, it doesn't. People like to claim that Fox News is the best "news" around because it has the largest audience. SpongeBob Squarepants has a larger audience than most of the talking heads on Fox "News", including Bill Orally.

0

namvet60 11 months ago

You really are an idiot aren't you? You can't tell the difference between Foxnews and Breitbart - you should get out of that heavy smoke.

0

downhillracer 11 months ago

It's not a surprise that you completely miss the point as the result of being so wrapped up in your disingenuous rhetoric. In addition to proving cousins shouldn't breed, you do provide a consistently humorous slant on the dumbing down of America. Thanks!

0

namvet60 11 months ago

Typical lame attacks from the U-B troll!

0

Sign in to comment

Click here to sign in