I'm honestly curious about this. How do you think democrats and liberals would respond if a movie were made in the US and distributed to US theaters about the assassination of President Obama while he was still in office?
Surely it is live by the gun die by the gun idea in the case of Bush. His followers would appear to be the violent section.
In the case of Obama he would appear to be actually at risk if the reality over there is anything like the aggression in the posts on this forum.
It is inappropriate for anyone to make and put out a film like this. For you to try and justify it is inexcusable.
I think we all can agree on that. According to the Secret Service assassination threats are 30X higher against Obama than against Bush. The atmosphere is the most toxic I've ever seen.
Liberals are so shamelessly persistent in their hypocrisy.
Undoubtedly, there would be arrests and prosecutions in short order. Liberals and Dems in control would find it ample reason to declare some kind of 'police state' type of emergency, and we all would probably lose our open internet access. Pelosi already calls middle aged, tax-paying, and otherwise boring and flabby Tea Party folks Nazis.
It is hardly conceivable the extent of the power play that would be made should such a thing occur. And...it would be great fodder for a Robert Ludlum style of novel. Of course, the author would mysteriously disappear or be subject to worse vitriol than a 911 bomber in a very public trial.
When the W assassination move came out, my friends (mostly liberal)and I thought it was in bad taste and also irresponsible. I would feel the same way about a similar movie about Obama.
I think that would be a vey irresponsible film to make and/or show. I would hope that all Americans would avoid supporting anything to do with such a thing.
I totally agree, Sab. I'm just wondering how they felt about the Bush assassination movie. I don't even remember much of a "stink" made about this film.
That's because there are so many liberal hypocrites and so many of them are in the media.
WHAT? There was a Bush assassination film? You've got to be kidding. What a totally tasteless epitomy of crap.
What conversation I saw about the Bush film on liberal blogs was that the film was a bad idea in bad taste. I don't know anyone who saw it.
My recollection is that the movie was criticized and never gained much traction. I can't even remember the name of it.
I pray for our president every night - for all our leaders, for that matter.
Good grief! It would be an outrage to both Liberals and Conservatives!
I think most reasonable people would agree with you. I "love" seeing it implied that Bush invited it; and as no particular fan of Bush but not a Democratic either, it's just plain baloney that anyone who wasn't "against" him must a violence- and gun- lover. It would be equally disgusting if the thing were about Obama - or Santa Claus, for that matter.
I was surprised when "W." was released.
I'm not a fan of the man, don't get me wrong, but it should not have been released at that time. It was disrespectful to the presidency.
I wouldn't be any more upset about an Obama assassination movie than I would an assassination of ANY sitting president - or elected official in any office at all. Again, it's disrespectful.
If you wanted to single out the man who held the office, that's fine. But by doing it while he is IN office is bad form.
I agree with you totally on this point. It was disrespectful to the presidency.
RE: "I was surprised when "W." was released."
Didn't know he'd been in jail
I wasn't so much surprised that it got released in 2008 instead of later. But it came and went without too much of an uproar. That was the surprise for me.
Maybe all this hateful spite that we see spewing from the right is pent up from '07 and '08. Bush took some big shots at the end there, but what could anybody say? He was not a good president.
I'd like to chase this idea down, if anyone is game. Is it wrong to be disrespectful of the presidency? I understand the argument for this, but I am not sure... I think if the price to be paid for vigilance in the face of the possible abuse of power is loss of respect for the office, then the price is worth paying. Any takers?
if you are saying that it is not disrespectful to question authority that appears to be far, far afield of Constitutional Law, then, I agree.
but, it is equally important to recognize it did not start with Obama or Bush, but just got more "in your face" through their actions...
we are in deep at this point, and everyone really needs to wake up quick and stand up and voice what they see, as TEA Party people are doing. It really shocks me to hear of so many that do not perceive the loss of liberties and freedoms as monumentally important to stop, let alone the connection to socialism that could end in communism, as defined by history's record...
I'll leave aside what I consider to be the rather bizarre suggestion that America could ever be a Communist country (I don't know if you'd noticed, but that form of government is rather soundly in the trash can at this point in history)...
...to re-ask my question, because I wasn't sure of your answer.
The original post referred to the movie W being disrespectful of the presidency, given Bush was still in power when it came out. I am a bit worried that a level of respect for the office that high might shield those who hold that office from criticism a little too much. I mean, isn't that how democracy should work... we let people lead us, but they really should be scared to death about what we think of them, imo
Legitimate investigation into the possible abuse of power is a right and a duty IMO.
Satire and entertainment at the expense of a sitting president is disrespectful to the office.
Here is the big grey area though:
The movie was out of line - not for it's content, but for the timing. That's my thought.
So then, where does that leave the daily pundits and stand up comedians? I don't think the Daily Show or SNL are disrespectful.
I have a contradiction. You can't allow one and deny the other, and ultimately they are no different, except the medium (TV/Feature Length Movie)
I think the president is open game for most things, as long as it's pretty obviously artistic or rhetorical in nature.
Where I draw the line is with actual shows of force and outright threats. Wearing a gun to a protest is intimidating to any opposition and a clear threat. Carrying a sign that says "It's time to water the tree of liberty" while carrying a gun is even more of a blatant threat.
Habee, your point is taken. I agree that it's scary to see people you don't agree with acting militant.
But I still think what we're seen with Obama is
1. more belligerent than what we saw with Bush
2. egged on by Fox News and the right wing talk show machine and
3. coming from a nonrational place, given that Obama hasn't really done anything any different from Bush.
That would be beyond insulting, I disagree with him but he is my president and everyone better keep their mitts off of him.
Unlike the trolls here who applauded and even wanted to pin a congressional medal on the dirtbag who threw shoes at Bush.
I thought the secret service did him a favor by not putting a .45 between his eyes.
I remember that.....it made me sick the way some sneered and had the attitude that the dude shoulda had a better aim. That was disgusting.
Say what you will about W, but ya gotta admit - the man has some quick reflexes!
Good! I'm glad to read these responses. I was shocked to find out that so many US theaters showed the Bush assassination movie.
I also agree with most of you other posters. I'm not a huge Obama fan, but he is my president, and I respect the office. I actually like him as a person! And as I stated earlier, I pray nightly for his safety. Our nation would be in chaos if (God forbid) something happened to him.
Personally, I thought Bush started out great but got worse as time passed. I still blame Cheney with a lot of it, though.
I had no idea that this movie was ever made. But I found this on IMDB:
"The point of the film is NOT some perverse fantasy about killing the current President of the United States of America, George Walker Bush Jr. People who say otherwise either haven't seen it or are wanting to purposely misguide you.
It is a drama in the style of a documentary (one that would air on television rather then a cinema screen) that looks at a possible run up to an assassination of the president, as well as how the investigation might be handled afterwards with the involvement of Dick Cheney (who would take over the Presidency if George Bush was assassinated).
The drama does not dwell or linger on the death of the president at all, in fact apart from Bush being crammed into his presidential car by secret service and whizzed away at high speed, that is all the viewer sees. You then find out about his death from mock news reports. Hardly a sordid gratification from a 'perverse' director.
The drama is convincing as a documentary by realistic interviews with decent unknown actors playing their roles just right without hyperbole as could quite easily be the case.
Without spoiling exact plot points, the drama makes a point in how the government may be more interested in finding a suspect and making the evidence fit the profile because it is more politically advantageous then actually running an investigation to find out exactly what happened, and draw suspects that way. Considering the current climate where seemingly the Geneva Convention is open to interpretation, and restrictions on Habeus Corpus, this suggestion is not far fetched in the slightest."
I dunno, it was made by someone from Britain in 2006, and barely shown in American theaters. I'm not all that interested in seeing it, even though I could be classified as a Bush hater.
I guess, if someone from another country made a similar movie about Obama getting assassinated at a similar point in his time in office, and a similar number of Americans saw it in theaters (what, like 3?) I'd have to say that I would... not really care.
On the other hand, if the movie was made by an American who openly hated Obama, and it was promoted by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, well then I'd be a little freaked and angry.
Bull what? I never heard of this movie when it was in theaters.
William, I think that's the point. I believe if a movie were made about the assassination of Obama while he's still in office, we'd hear PLENTY about it!
As for guns at political rallies or protests, I agree with you. I support the second amendment, but I would never carry my shotgun or pistol to such a gathering. That's just asking for a tragedy to occur. I think it's irresponsible. I generally only take my firearms to the woods or to the skeet range, and I haven't even done that in a while.
The movie was filmed in the US, distributed by an American company, and was shown in almost 140 US cinemas, so I kinda think more than 3 people saw it. If they wanted to do a documentary, they should have made up a president.
I can't find where the movie was shot but it is referred to as a British film everywhere I've looked. NewMarket Cinema paid one million dollars for the US distribution rights, the first weekend apparently it made $280,000 which is dismal and the entire time it played looks like the total gross was only half a million. It only lasted for 2 weeks at the box office.
I didn't vote for President Obama but he is our president and he deserves our support. If he does well I'll be the first to vote for his secound term! I was very angry about the witch hunt the repulicans pulled on Clinton. They made him virtually useless with all their investigations and thats sad because he was never afraid to adopt a policy that worked from either side. W was dealt a tough hand he played it as well as anyone could but his good ole boy deals sucked and why he didn't close the border reeks of backdoor diplomacy! I don't like the bad actors around Obama but its his turn to prove the skeptics wrong and I wish him luck!
Seeing as I seem to remember disagreeing with you pretty fiercely the last time we crossed paths, I thought I'd drop in to say how much I like this post. In my book, Kenneth Starr was a traitor, more interested in God-knows-what than the real issues that should matter to a nation...
You blew me away! Thanks, the state of American politics is alarming!
Ditto - this was a nice post.
See there ya go again, Rick.
Being all reasonable & what-not.
You just wait till next time I'll blow you liberals away!(can the next debate be about fishing?)
I prefer Rock Bass from the Great Lakes.
I've caught plenty of my share.
Green Bass are also tasty. Fresh bait is best but I do think those little jiggly things with the fake eyeballs are
Minerals? I don't know what that means.
See there it is... trying to confuse your competitor... going off topic...
I'm kidding. But - I don't know what you mean by minerals.
Animal or vegetable or mineral?
Vitamin or mineral?
I'm missing something obvious maybe but what do minerals have to do with fishing?
Aw to hell with it, I'm going back to the religion forums.
you suck too.
I want to win so, I was hoping you didn't know anything about that topic too!
Well you are a worthy opponent and I'll spot you 5 points for being a girl!
Well, spot yourself a point for making me think that I don't know enough about fishing
to understand what minerals have to do with it.
But I'm giving back the 5 points. Only I decide when to play the "girl card".
See, if I use it too much, the boys don't let me hang around any more! And I really don't want to go hang around with the gossipy drama hungry girls...
No kidding. I am the only woman at my company who does NOT work in the front office answering phones. Nope - I'm back in production where all the boys are.
" Kenneth Starr was a traitor, more interested in God-knows-what than the real issues that should matter to a nation..."
He was doing his job. It's not his fault Clinton broke the law.
As a liberal democrat I would think such a movie tasteless and a source of encouragement for those on the fringe, just as I thought about making such a movie with Bush as the target.
by Grace Marguerite Williams4 years ago
SOME REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVES AND VICE VERSA?In the book GENERATIONS: THE HISTORY OF AMERICA'S FUTURE, 1584 TO 2069 by authors William Strauss and Neil Howe, it predicted that there would be growing...
by Susan Reid2 years ago
excerpted from Liberals pride themselves on being tolerant. Are they really just suckers?"Does fear and intolerance actually work better? I find it interesting (not surprising) that research actually shows...
by JonTutor8 years ago
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/19061?page=8#post300434That guy resorts to ad hominem against liberals... I wanna know why his mocking statement is allowed.... and I can't respond to it.
by phion5 years ago
The title is misleading, because I have no answer as to why he does. Can those of you who plan to vote, or voted for Obama the first time give some valid reasons?
by lady_love1586 years ago
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- … ht-to-hellIt's pretty clear Waters hates Americans that don't share her radical views, telling them they can go straight to h***! Really Maxine? The poster girl for...
by Scott Bateman15 months ago
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … ouseholds/
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.