The film "2016 Obama’s America"

[carlfense]

Really??? Good Lord, the guy was a celebrity amongst many because he finally was uncovering the truth. Fahrenheit 911 is the highest grossing documentary of all time. That isn't because everyone thought it was a bunch of lies and didn't take it seriously.

Maybe you need to find more moderate people. The extremes at either end will embrace their own propaganda and condemn the propaganda of the other side. Moore and D'Souza are different sides of the same coin.

[sd'sker]

Really??? Good Lord, the guy was a celebrity amongst many because he finally was uncovering the truth. Fahrenheit 911 is the highest grossing documentary of all time. That isn't because everyone thought it was a bunch of lies and didn't take it seriously.

Maybe you need to find more moderate people. The extremes at either end will embrace their own propaganda and condemn the propaganda of the other side. Moore and D'Souza are different sides of the same coin.

also, as far as media attention, moore works with a huge budget. this d'souza film had no publicity or advertisement and most people did not know it even existed until it was out. that is not media bias, that is a lack of funding.

[Sub-Husker]

No film is made to be an unbiased presentation of facts, they all have an agenda.

 

Michael Moore makes 'mocumentaries' that have a basis in reality but are loose with facts to mostly expose abuses of power.

 

The Obama 2016 movie was made by a conservative filmmaker to give his opinion of what America would look like after four more years of Obama.

 

If you think that a film will entertain you, then by all means go see it. But do not go with the intent of seeing a neutral documentary.

[knapplc]

No film is made to be an unbiased presentation of facts, they all have an agenda.

 

Michael Moore makes 'mocumentaries' that have a basis in reality but are loose with facts to mostly expose abuses of power.

 

The Obama 2016 movie was made by a conservative filmmaker to give his opinion of what America would look like after four more years of Obama.

 

If you think that a film will entertain you, then by all means go see it. But do not go with the intent of seeing a neutral documentary.

I'll agree with all of that, and add that you will learn almost nothing of actual factual substance about Right-Wing politicians from Left-Wing filmmakers. Of course the same goes for the opposite direction.

 

I am proud to say I've never seen a Michale Moore film. I'd rather watch four uninterrupted hours of Dora the Explorer than his drivel. And you won't catch me watching this hatchet piece in the OP, either. I have too much self-respect to watch this kind of garbage.

[Sub-Husker]

am proud to say I've never seen a Michale Moore film. I'd rather watch four uninterrupted hours of Dora the Explorer than his drivel. And you won't catch me watching this hatchet piece in the OP, either. I have too much self-respect to watch this kind of garbage.

 

I will say this... that the Moore film Sicko did do a service to this nation by highlighting the abuses by a very greedy industry. Sure, many facts were triaged for the movie.

 

"Lefty Fiction" will usually be more popular than "Righty Fiction", because it is more likely to poke fun at people in power.

 

Fox News tried to recreate a right wing version of the Daily Show, but it was a complete disaster.

 

.

 

Edit: I would watch Atlas Shrugged over Dora.

[BigRedBuster]

[

"Slightly opposite" means, to me, that you're probably a Moderate like me, just a smidge on the other side of the spectrum. An issue here or there different, but largely the same. Yet we bicker about Republican This or Democrat That and draw lines.

 

I know "us vs. them" is a human trait, ingrained since the caveman days to protect precious resources like food and shelter, but it really gets in the way of progress today when we just want to move along from partisan BS.

 

And yes, I'm guilty of fueling the bickering, too. To some degree I'm entertained by it, but for the most part I'm utterly bored with it. I'd still rather talk to you about cooking. I think we have a ton of common ground there.

 

Oh...I think we have a ton of common ground. But, where we differ is which candidate do we want in office.

 

I have seen enough of Obama to do me for the rest of my life. I honestly want him out yesterday.

 

Now.....I did not start out supporting Romney. But, the one thing that does interest me with him is that he is a business man and a very successful business man and he has ran large organizations before. He has actually accomplished something. That is completely opposite of who we have now. And, for the record, I can't stand investment bankers. I've worked with them before and they are bastards. So, like I said, It's not like I am a huge fan of Romney.

 

This is where we see a huge difference between you and me. I want a business man in office because they understand what spending and taxes do and how they relate to the business world. And, THAT is where jobs will be created.

[BigRedBuster]

am proud to say I've never seen a Michale Moore film. I'd rather watch four uninterrupted hours of Dora the Explorer than his drivel. And you won't catch me watching this hatchet piece in the OP, either. I have too much self-respect to watch this kind of garbage.

 

I will say this... that the Moore film Sicko did do a service to this nation by highlighting the abuses by a very greedy industry. Sure, many facts were triaged for the movie.

 

"Lefty Fiction" will usually be more popular than "Righty Fiction", because it is more likely to poke fun at people in power.

 

Fox News tried to recreate a right wing version of the Daily Show, but it was a complete disaster.

 

.

 

Edit: I would watch Atlas Shrugged over Dora.

 

Really???? Are you sure???? On one hand you agree that in a documentary he completely was biased and put out a complete fraud of a "documentary". Then, on the other hand you act like another of his "documentaries" is truthful.

 

To me, this is about like if I caught my wife banging the entire team of Dallas Cowboys and then the next month she stayed in the same hotel as them and I'm supposed to believe she's being faithful.

 

In the media, burn me once that bad and I have a really difficult time ever believing you again.

[knapplc]

I'm sure at some point Michael Moore has said something that was actually factual, and probably would be useful to know. But frankly, I tuned him out after watching excerpts from Roger & Me where he basically attacked the guy in an effort to make a film; I had seen enough. I don't care how well-intentioned his motives were (and I don't think they were that well-intentioned), but I just don't dig that kind of "journalism." Wrote him off then and there and haven't missed a second of sleep over it since.

[Sub-Husker]

Really???? Are you sure???? On one hand you agree that in a documentary he completely was biased and put out a complete fraud of a "documentary". Then, on the other hand you act like another of his "documentaries" is truthful.

 

You used used the word "completely" twice, I did not use it at all.

 

You used used the word "fraud" once, I did not use it at all.

 

I never used the word "documentaries" to describe his films, as you said I did. I identified them as "mocumentaries".

 

Nor did I use the word "thruthful", or any form of it.

 

Please re-read what I wrote, then reply to that.

 

Thank you.

 

To me, this is about like if I caught my wife banging the entire team of Dallas Cowboys and then the next month she stayed in the same hotel as them and I'm supposed to believe she's being faithful.

 

Analogies only work if they are remotely proportional.

 

This one is not remotely proportional.

 

In the media, burn me once that bad and I have a really difficult time ever believing you again.

 

If dishonesty is fire, they you must really fear getting burned by Fox News. And Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as politicians.

[Sub-Husker]

I'm sure at some point Michael Moore has said something that was actually factual, and probably would be useful to know. But frankly, I tuned him out after watching excerpts from Roger & Me where he basically attacked the guy in an effort to make a film; I had seen enough. I don't care how well-intentioned his motives were (and I don't think they were that well-intentioned), but I just don't dig that kind of "journalism." Wrote him off then and there and haven't missed a second of sleep over it since.

 

To be honest I have not seen any of his movies either.

 

But I did watch Bill Mahr's anti-religion film Religulous on NetFlix.

[BigRedBuster]

Really???? Are you sure???? On one hand you agree that in a documentary he completely was biased and put out a complete fraud of a "documentary". Then, on the other hand you act like another of his "documentaries" is truthful.

 

You used used the word "completely" twice, I did not use it at all.

 

You used used the word "fraud" once, I did not use it at all.

 

I never used the word "documentaries" to describe his films, as you said I did. I identified them as "mocumentaries".

 

Nor did I use the word "thruthful", or any form of it.

 

Please re-read what I wrote, then reply to that.

 

Thank you.

 

To me, this is about like if I caught my wife banging the entire team of Dallas Cowboys and then the next month she stayed in the same hotel as them and I'm supposed to believe she's being faithful.

 

Analogies only work if they are remotely proportional.

 

This one is not remotely proportional.

 

In the media, burn me once that bad and I have a really difficult time ever believing you again.

 

If dishonesty is fire, they you must really fear getting burned by Fox News. And Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan as politicians.

 

I'll flat out say I don't like their dishonestly and it concerns me. Will you say the same thing about the Obama and Uncle Joe?

 

We are talking about documentaries in this thread. You then point to what the rest of the world calls a documentary in "sicko" and claim it was pretty good. Documentaries are by definition supposed to be truthful and teach us something.

 

From Dictionary.com

 

doc·u·men·ta·ry   [dok-yuh-men-tuh-ree, -tree] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural doc·u·men·ta·ries. adjective

 

1. Also, doc·u·men·tal  [dok-yuh-men-tl] Show IPA. pertaining to, consisting of, or derived from documents: a documentary history of France.

 

2. Movies, Television . based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements: a documentary life of Gandhi.

 

You claimed that Sicko "highlighted abuses of a very greedy industry".

 

Now, if you claim that this is just a "mocumentary" (what ever that is) then how can it uncover anything if it isn't factual?

[knapplc]

Hate Bill Maher.

 

 

 

 

I'm just full of dislike today. None of these talking head freaks interest me at all.

[BigRedBuster]

Man Knapp....

 

I can't believe we are agreeing this much.

 

Bill Maher is a piece of crap for all I care.

[Sub-Husker]

I'll flat out say I don't like their dishonestly and it concerns me. Will you say the same thing about the Obama and Uncle Joe?

 

Yes, and you can go through the archives here to confirn it.

 

I an mo fan of Obama/Biden/Hillary, but see them as less foul than McCain/Palin and Romney/Ryan.

 

We are talking about documentaries in this thread. You then point to what the rest of the world calls a documentary in "sicko" and claim it was pretty good. Documentaries are by definition supposed to be truthful and teach us something.

 

I clearly labelled Moore's films as "mocumentaries", with bias and with an agenda (see post #18).

 

Then I said that Moore did a triage on facts, and talked about lefty fiction (see post #20).

 

I am sorry if you were confused.

 

You claimed that Sicko "highlighted abuses of a very greedy industry".

 

Now, if you claim that this is just a "mocumentary" (what ever that is) then how can it uncover anything if it isn't factual?

 

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

 

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

 

According to Sicko, almost fifty million Americans are uninsured while the remainder, who are covered, are often victims of insurance company fraud and red tape. Interviews are conducted with people who thought they had adequate coverage but were denied care. Former employees of insurance companies describe cost-cutting initiatives that give bonuses to insurance company physicians and others to find reasons for the company to avoid meeting the cost of medically necessary treatments for policy holders, and thus increase company profitability.

[sd'sker]

You claimed that Sicko "highlighted abuses of a very greedy industry".

Now, if you claim that this is just a "mocumentary" (what ever that is) then how can it uncover anything if it isn't factual?

 

you really think it is as black and white as either all true or all false? you have to be able to decipher the truth in all information you consume.