Death of a Nation | Quality Flix | August 3rd, 2018 | right-wing documentary to release in over 1,000 theaters

[RandomCat]

4 minutes ago, dudalb said:

It's a last resort, but if Trump succeeds in totally corrupting the political system so that it's a defacto one party system, armed reistence is justified, I really hope it does not come to that but I am afraid it may.

And I am NOT a Pacifist. Pacifism is stupid.

Oh wow...Just...wow...

That's...just...wow...

Excuse me. I'm just not going to engage with you anymore.

[dudalb]

7 minutes ago, RandomCat said:

Oh wow...Just...wow...

That's...just...wow...

Excuse me. I'm just not going to engage with you anymore.

Yeah, a Pacifist nonviolent approach would have worked great in stopping Hitler..

Pacifism ...by pacifism I mean thinking the use of force under any and all circumstances is bad....is stupid,it guarantees that the bad guys..the Hitlers of the world..will win.

In the Real World, the use of force is sometimes necessary.

Maybe Pacifism is Unrealistic is a better term then stupid.

Edited July 18, 2018 by dudalb

[SLAM!]

23 minutes ago, dudalb said:

I prefer religious freedom for all.

 

Me too.

[Barnack]

25 minutes ago, dudalb said:

I have to disagree with you there. The Presidency of Donald Trump has made me turn in favor of private gun ownership if we need to take the Resistence to the next level.

I have always sort of broken with the Liberal Orthodoxy when it comes to gun ownership.

Trump is a good reminder for when people want the federal government to have a lot of power and so on, one big issue here is gut nuts seem to love him, historically when the gun nuts/conspiracy type start to love the guy in power instead of fearing/hating it like it tend to naturally be the case, it tend to not go too well.

[dudalb]

5 minutes ago, Slambros said:

 

Me too.

I don't trust people who say that but then say they want a "Christian America" . Seems to me the two are contradictory. Once you have an official..or even a "semi official" religion you have just thrown religious freedom down the drain.

Yes, when it comes to relgiigous freedom I don't trust the religious right one bit. It will be a case of "religious freedom for me, not for thee".

[dudalb]

3 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Trump is a good reminder for when people want the federal government to have a lot of power and so on, one big issue here is gut nuts seem to love him, historically when the gun nuts/conspiracy type start to love the guy in power instead of fearing/hating it like it tend to naturally be the case, it tend to not go too well.

A. I am in favor of reasonable gun laws...longer waiting peroids and thorough background checks,people with a history of severe mental and emotional problems not being allowed to own guns. I just have problem with totally banning guns.

B.Yeah, it is amusing to see all these right wing people who claim to  hate the federal government basically wanting a right wing dictatorship.

[RandomCat]

16 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Yeah, a Pacifist nonviolent approach would have worked great in stopping Hitler..

Pacifism ...by pacifism I mean thinking the use of force under any and all circumstances is bad....is stupid,it guarantees that the bad guys..the Hitlers of the world..will win.

In the Real World, the use of force is sometimes necessary.

Maybe Pacifism is Unrealistic is a better term then stupid.

I'm sorry. Here's the part where I see you're argument drags in Hitler, and I laugh. It's ludicrous. Even more ludicrous than there was no reason for you to bring up pacifism at all, except to call it stupid.

 

Spoiler

we'll just ignore that you don't even have the foresight to not call it stupid in the very post you're trying to act the higher ground by trying to course correct to "unrealistic". Also we'll ignore that pacifism movements have been successful in the past, so unrealistic isn't even true either. 

 

I'm still not even sure why you brought up pacifism, no one was going to think you are one. You just wanted to insult someone's personal beliefs because you disagree with them. That's not a good thing. You aren't the winner in the situation where you, for no reason whatsoever, try to call out pacifists.

[dudalb]

5 minutes ago, RandomCat said:

I'm sorry. Here's the part where I see you're argument drags in Hitler, and I laugh. It's ludicrous. Even more ludicrous than there was no reason for you to bring up pacifism at all, except to call it stupid.

 

  Hide contents

we'll just ignore that you don't even have the foresight to not call it stupid in the very post you're trying to act the higher ground by trying to course correct to "unrealistic". Also we'll ignore that pacifism movements have been successful in the past, so unrealistic isn't even true either.  

 

I'm still not even sure why you brought up pacifism, no one was going to think you are one. You just wanted to insult someone's personal beliefs because you disagree with them. That's not a good thing. You aren't the winner in the situation where you, for no reason whatsoever, try to call out pacifists.

It begun when I brough up the idea of armed resistence to a dictatorship and you called that out as being crazy.

And I maintain the Hitler reference is valid. Would pacifism have stopped Hitler?

Pacifists have a right to their beliefs, but I have a right to call their beliefs silly and unrealistic.. And you called out my belief that armed resistence to a dictatorship .....

[The Panda]

1 hour ago, Slambros said:

 

That's one of the points.

 

America's current constitution, America's current bill of rights, allows the situation to favor the mother and the children. I'll break it down.

 

- The woman has the right to own the gun for self-defense situations such as this, as long as she got it legally.

- Being a woman does not detract from her right to own the gun.

- Being a minority does not detract from her right to own the gun.

 

This is a situation that makes me say 'God bless America'. This is a situation that makes me happy to live in a country like this, where freedom is taken seriously, where potential crime against the innocent is limited by the rights we have.

None of that video contradicted what I said.

 

I wasn't claiming minorities didn't have the right to own a gun.  I was saying most Republicans, like Dinesh, are in favor of ridiculously loose gun laws (beyond simply having the right to own a gun), and throw a fit if anything regarding gun control is mentioned, such as more secure background checks, or closing gun control loopholes, or ensuring mental stability of people who buy guns.

 

It also doesn't contradict that Republicans are consistently against workers rights, against the right to have access to affordable healthcare, against religious freedom for people who aren't Christian, against a woman's right to control her own healthcare (as well as continually defending predators who have defied different womens rights, such as the sitting president right now), against LGBT rights to marry and being able to shop without being refused service, against black rights to not be profiled and targeted by authorities, against immigrant rights to be able to keep their children with them when seeking asylum, etc.

 

And to not get this off-topic, Dinesh is setting up a ridiculous argument with this movie that is in fact racist.  As it's not just permissing, the disenfranchisement that's being done by the Republican party of women and minorities, it's equating it to them to the likes of Lincoln.

[Webslinger]

1 hour ago, Pandamia! said:

It also doesn't contradict that Republicans are consistently against workers rights, against the right to have access to affordable healthcare, against religious freedom for people who aren't Christian, against a woman's right to control her own healthcare (as well as continually defending predators who have defied different womens rights, such as the sitting president right now), against LGBT rights to marry and being able to shop without being refused service, against black rights to not be profiled and targeted by authorities, against immigrant rights to be able to keep their children with them when seeking asylum, etc.

Yup, they're The Party of Lincoln all right.

[SLAM!]

57 minutes ago, Pandamia! said:

None of that video contradicted what I said.

 

I wasn't claiming minorities didn't have the right to own a gun.  I was saying most Republicans, like Dinesh, are in favor of ridiculously loose gun laws (beyond simply having the right to own a gun), and throw a fit if anything regarding gun control is mentioned, such as more secure background checks, or closing gun control loopholes, or ensuring mental stability of people who buy guns.

 

It also doesn't contradict that Republicans are consistently against workers rights, against the right to have access to affordable healthcare, against religious freedom for people who aren't Christian, against a woman's right to control her own healthcare (as well as continually defending predators who have defied different womens rights, such as the sitting president right now), against LGBT rights to marry and being able to shop without being refused service, against black rights to not be profiled and targeted by authorities, against immigrant rights to be able to keep their children with them when seeking asylum, etc.

 

And to not get this off-topic, Dinesh is setting up a ridiculous argument with this movie that is in fact racist.  As it's not just permissing, the disenfranchisement that's being done by the Republican party of women and minorities, it's equating it to them to the likes of Lincoln.

 

Well, you're definitely approaching the topic with rational thought. I absolutely agree that the flaws of the Republican party definitely need to be addressed. There may be a left wing and there may be a right wing, but they're part of the same bird, right? We need to help each other and solve problems together as a nation. It's just a shame that the two parties keep pointing fingers, when they are two pieces of the same jigsaw puzzle.

 

being able to shop without being refused service

 

I agree with that; they should be able to shop without being refused service. Of course, Jack Phillips, the Christian baker in that one case, should have the right to do what he did (as a Muslim baker should as well), but that doesn't mean LGBT shouldn't be able to buy or sell.

 

That's another example of the middle ground. We need that middle ground. America needs that middle ground. That doesn't mean dismissing the left, and that doesn't mean dismissing the right, because Americans of all colors are capable of having valid points.

 

You're right about the film being in the wrong for comparing Trump to Lincoln to be honest.

[Jake Gittes]

 

[Lordmandeep]

Oddly only a Republican I think would be capable politically of Gun Reform based on the politcal map and climate of the USA.

[SLAM!]

Yeah, he needs to provide arguments instead of plain statements. I wondered why the man was perceived as a bad filmmaker, and now I know.

[jking123]

Frak this movie.

[TalismanRing]

10 minutes ago, Slambros said:

Yeah, he needs to provide arguments instead of plain statements. I wondered why the man was perceived as a bad filmmaker, and now I know.

Bad filmmaker, even worse human being.

[RandomCat]

All you need to know about D'Souza. Guy committed fraud, blamed the people who caught him.

[John2015]

The topic is wrong.  The film is not a faith-based documentary. 

[Webslinger]

6 hours ago, Jake Gittes said:

 

And that's not even the best part of the review. His breakdown of the "Hitler was actually liberal" sophistry would be hilarious if the film and its audience weren't so deadly serious about it.

 

Even after booking all three of the director's previous "documentaries," my ultra-conservative area isn't bothering with this one. Hooray! It's an added bonus that not booking this thing means that Sorry to Bother You gets a second week.

[filmlover]

We could easily start a "Things We Would Rather Do Than See Death of a Nation" thread and the list would probably never end.