Anyone else notice the obvious liberal bias in the movie? Dobbs is supposed to be running as an independent, yet his most clear and memorable cracks are against Repubs/conservatives-
1. Tie to big oil. 2. No accountability. 3. Person won election who didn't get the higher popular vote. 4. 2 jokes vs. traditional marriage. 5. Joke vs. Intelligent Design.
Not that any of the above should be disallowed, but is it too much to ask to have at least an attempt at balance?
infidelity religious hypocracy defense spending transparency lobbyists lazy congress gay marriage
His central point was that both major parties are guilty of dividing the nation over petty extremes like gay marriage. Some of what he says is just common sense. Intelligent design is alot of things, intelligent is not one of them. Government should be more transparent, left or right, and bowing to lobbyists and big oil while ignoring citizens has been going on for decades on both sides.
As for balance, why should a liberal argue in balance for the moderates and the right. If the right only wants to favour its voters than the left should be allowed to represent everyone.
The left doesn't represent everyone because many Americans do not agree with the left. What people in this country need is a political approach that is completely non-partisan. Otherwise, things are going to keep going the way they are, and that's really gonna suck...
But seriously, I don't think the movie really had much to say politically at all. You're not the most aggressive of conservatives i've encountered on this board but I don't get why so many Conservatives like to demonize any filmmaker for speaking their mind. That's what they're supposed to do. It's part of art to draw from your views and experiences, and i'm not even saying that they're entirely liberal, but they do one thing that's anti-conservative and you invalidate their entire movie.
Robin's character was supposed to be running as an Indy, yet most of his "bigger" jokes are against conversatives/Repubs/religious conservatives.
If this was supposed to be a clearly liberal movie, then fine. Of course people can make the movies they want- left or right on the political/social spectrum. But it was billed as a movie against both sides and it clearly was against only one side.
Re: a different post, what is unintelligent about Intelligent Design?
I have to agree with caulleys, there seems to be sort of an all or none response of denial from people who associate with the Republican party, while people who assoicate more with liberal views can laugh and agree. Also, regardless of whichever subscribe to, you probably have a propensity to selectively hear what relates towards your party.
Did tohearns ever stop to think that it is simply easier to make fun of the Republicans with their apparent connections to ideas and policies that are already controversial?
Wow, who wants political correctedness MORE these days, liberals or conservatives? I'm sorry your Conservative feelings got hurt... next time they'll wrap it up with a bowtie and hand it to you while smiling but when you open it up it'll still be the same wise-ass crack at your feelings. See that is what the conservatives do these days... I'd argue that on the whole they're still classist, and yet they talk about the poor like they want to help them. And wrapped up in all the classist sentiment is a tinge of racism still. You don't think that Republicans would fund welfare if the majority of those on it were white Christians? THEN it would be "the Lord's bidding" or something like that.
Look, I am all for fiscal conservativism (within reason, corporations still need to be checked and regulated) and I'd love to see the day when we could abolish such money-sinks like welfare, etc. What I don't give a *beep* about is if gays are married or if someone chooses to have an abortion... and yet these are such hot-button issues. Please, let's get back to REAL issues. I'm sorry that you're uncomfortable with the idea that if we let them marry, gays are just going to turn the rest of the country gay and we'll never be able to procreate again.
You obviously had an ear for the jokes pointed at you (whom I assume to be a conservative). What ever happened to the "ass-kicking" party of Bush? I thought you guys were truck-driving, gun-toting, Muslim-extremist hating bad-asses, and yet you let a couple of joke in a movie bother you? C'mon dude.
I think that you have missed the point of Dobb's character, he wasn't just cracking down on conservative/republic tactics, he was rather making a commentary upon the whole two party system. He exposes the foibles of both parties, not just of one specific political group. Besides the fact that having liberal ideals does not mean that you have a connection to a specific party. Being liberal is more about having a specific set of principals and ideals, not about being affiliated to a political party.
"There may be strength in conformity and repetition, but there is power in freedom."
Let's focus on that for just a second and forget right and left. Why is "big oil" such an easy joke, and why does everyone assume "of course they're bad?" I have worked for "big oil" for over 30 years. I have worked with very hard working people who love their families and try to do what is right. I have worked with liberals, conservatives, libertarians, atheists, agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Hindus - it's hard to find a more diverse work force than an international oil company.
My oil company is extremely responsible in terms of environmental impact (we report EVERYTHING, not just what we are required by law to report) and spend millions cleaning things up. We have brought power, hospitals, food, and clean water to places that have never had it before.
We invest millions in alternative energy. We are currently the largest producer in the world of wind power-generated energy, and we have huge investments in battery power and solar power.
I am currently sitting in Luanda, Angola, as I write this and in the short time I have been here I have seen us hold huge rallies to educate Angolan people (not employees, but just people in the city) about malaria and malaria prevention - something we spent thousands and millions on with no hope of return, other than good will and humanity.
When you pay higher prices for oil, so do we. Yes, our profits go up when the price of oil goes up, but this is probably the most capital intensive business around. Out last offshore rig in the Gulf of Mexico cost us over $5 billion and took 6 years to bring online. Without money coming in, we can't pay for that kind of investment - particularly when there is no return for over 6 years and the break even point is 10 years out.
People yell when the price of oil goes up that we are making obscene profits, but no one yells when the price of oil drops and we can't fund our core business.
But after over 30 years, I can see it's cyclic, so hopefully you make enough in the good years to get you through the lean - otherwise it's the mid 80s all over again and you lay off 40% of your work force. And when you employ 80,000 people like we did in the mid 80s, that's 32,000 families who lose their main source of income.
Sorry, I know we will continue to be villified, and I will be made fun of, but I really, really think its pretty one-sided and usually done without any critical thought.
We are just too easy a target, I guess.
Done. Just wanted to get that off my chest. Let the mocking being! ;)
the problem with oil companies is that they have too much power with the policies implemented in the US. there's a lot of money being invested in alternate fuel but it's a very small portion of the profits being made and not only that, the united states has gone to war with other countries just for the control over oil. that's why oil companies are easy targets...
there are so many alternative sources of energy that have already been invented but have not yet reached the market because oil companies want to capitalize on their oil supplies. yes they employ many people and invest a lot on charitable causes, but that is just for tax breaks and to keep specific interest groups off their backs...there is in no way any true humanitarian and noble causes for the money being spent into charitable causes.
the problem is that oil companies are being short-sighted and are very greedy. they know they have control over a resource that is used in nearly every industry and that gives them too much power. if they had no power whatsoever regarding government policy (or any other industry for that matter) people would not have such a big feud with them
Being independent doesn't mean that he can't be from the left or right of politics. It's just mean that he has no party affiliation.
I didn't really feel him being more against republican, than democrats, but even if he was, so what? Ralph Nader would be a good example of an independent like that (well I suppose he always found a party to carry his ballot so maybe not that independent). The movie was about how corrupt the 2 major parties are, not which side is more often correct (or probably less often wrong).
Aside from the Intelligent Design and gay marriage jokes--which really should offend only certain religious groups and have nothing to do with traditional politics--this movie was really unbiased. The fact that many Republicans currently have ties to big oil and allegations of voter fraud is just a coincidence; a result of having George as the current president. They make a big point of showing how Dobbs gets votes for both sides.
If this movie really wanted to make any sort of liberal point, it would have mentioned, even once, anything about any war.
And even if you're conservative and for some insane reason you see gay marriage as an important issue that needs dealing with, isn't it still less important than other issues such as education and poverty? That's the point Dobbs makes in the movie.
There were digs at several religions - buddhism, judaism, catholicism. He called the Pope a Nazi, for pete's sake. It's called comedy, and it's an equal opportunity offender. I can understand not liking the movie for whatever reason - but liberal bias? anti-semitism? Sounds like "weapons of mass distraction" to me.
Antisemitism? Don't you love when someone like Vega makes up an unprovable accusation and flings at something that tells a little truth about their beloved Nazi - errr political party?
I think the movie had more of a balance than some other movies (American Dreamz, to name an example.. ugh). I agree that it was probably more left-leaning, but he was opposed to BOTH political parties.
I think the last quote sums it all up: "Politicians are a lot like diapers. They should be changed frequently, and for the same reasons." Career politicians should take heed.
Must be hard to watch a movie when you're a con, since most are made by more liberal people. Yes cons are usually portrayed as evil or just plain stupid characters, but then how does that differ from reality.
Must be hard to watch a movie when you're a con, since most are made by more liberal people. Yes cons are usually portrayed as evil or just plain stupid characters, but then how does that differ from reality.
Because not all cons are stupid or evil, and not all liberals are good and intelegent. For every GWB there's an Al sharpon.
WIth that said, I agree with the OP to a degree, I noticed that myself, I wasn't offended by any means but unless someone can point something out, I didn't see him knock the democrat side at all, which while he can pass off in the film as a liberal independant, I saw no reaosn that he would win a conservative vote due to his lack of knocking the democratic party, unless they hated both parties and found him funny.
With that said, I thought the movie was ok.
reply share
The movie tried to not actually take any side and be merely entertaining. But when he had to really say SOMETHING about anything, he took the usual liberal side- throw more money at education, the big oil companies are evil, etc, etc. He said he was going to have a cabinet that expressed all points of view, but if those were his real beliefs, the cabinet would be composed of the usual left-leaning socialist-thinking Democrats of which the Daily Kos is so enamored.
"Cons won't throw money at education because they're not educated, so they don't see the point."
What do you know, another hateful liberal. Anyone that actually believes such a thing is truly the one lacking intelligence. Liberals are made up of two types of people, elitists and stupid people. Take any bum off the street, drug addict, etc etc, gurantee you they are liberal every time. Lol, just look at Hollywood. The elitists choose to ignore this fact and insult just about everyone in the south for being stupid. Not everyone in the country lives on the coasts in your precious liberal bubble. From where I am from, every person with even a hint of intelligence is an admitted Republican. While practically every morally challenged moron votes democrat.
Just look at this thread. Every other post is like this one mocking conservatives with cheap shots. I am so tired of the far left spewing their lies and hate. Now maybe the reverse is true where you live and everyone you know and consider intelligent is a democrat. The point is its all a matter of perspective. One side really isnt smarter than the other.
Well if you look at the things you are pointing out, shouldn't those things be made fun of?
1. Tie to big oil. -Should anyone that's supposed to be representing us be payed b y special interests?
2. No accountability. -Politicians shouldn't be held accountable for the things they do? Both good and bad?
3. Person won election who didn't get the higher popular vote. -Shouldn't the president that gets the most votes from the people technically win, since it's a Democracy and we, the people should have the final say?
4.2 jokes vs. traditional marriage. -Pretty much just jokes, not really pointed towards either side.
5.Joke vs. Intelligent Design. -Intelligent Design really isn't a conservative issue, it's a Christian issue. The only ones that argue for Intelligent Design are Christians, not all politically right thinking people.
Of course whatever I say is debatable to, after all the world isn't black and white, and what I perceive isn't exactly what you perceive, but I personally do not think this movie was really leaning either way, instead it was pressing the issue that issues are dividing this country into two different sides, when it shouldn't be either one way or the other, the world isn't like that. There's usually an in-between, an other, an undecided, and an indifference.
Anyways, sorry for the book and have a nice night.
"Person won election who didn't get the higher popular vote. -Shouldn't the president that gets the most votes from the people technically win, since it's a Democracy and we, the people should have the final say?"
That's a sad misconception about America. Our governmental system is not a democracy, it's a republic. We have a representative government, not a democratic one. That is why none of our government officals ever look out for the poor or middle class. Because they are all rich wealthy white guys who are supported by other wealthy white guys, and thats who they look out for.
Sharpton, from what I know of him, is not a liberal.
Yes he is, read any of his statements. I'm not saying it's bad that he's liberal, I am however calling him an idiot, as I'm calling bush an idiot, and saying idiots don't stay on one side of the spectrum.
That is why none of our government officals ever look out for the poor or middle class. Because they are all rich wealthy white guys who are supported by other wealthy white guys, and thats who they look out for.
Most are white yes, many aren't though.
It's more the rich not caring about anyone else then specificly rich white guys. Even on the local levels.
reply share