MankiniThong.com

It’s a movie…. the character (a bad one, at that) claims to be from Kazakhstan. The actor, of course, is not. The movie is a bad one, cruel and inappropriate.

I don’t. I know he’s from England.

Sacha Baron Cohens movie appeared to be a documentary, which has duped some of the naive viewing public.

Sasha Baron Cohen (Borat) does pick on the British and everyone else for that matter. It’s just a movie we know he is not from Kazakhstan. He is a comedian he was being funny.

I don’t know where you are but everyone I know already knows that ‘Borat’ was a fictional character played by a British actor. Besides, wasn’t that movie last year?

I guess I have a trusting nature.

The British already have enough people making fun of them

Watch the movie. Don’t be ignorant. Accept that it is a comedy and that people liked it, knowing full well that just about all of it was nonsense.

I would rather live in Britain than Kazakhstan any day, regardless of the purposeful misinterpretation of the movie.

I personally love the movie and quote it often.

It’s satire. It’s not meant to be accurate representation of Kazakhstan. You do realize it is comedy right? It’s not marketed as documentary.

Lighten up, it’s called humour…not my kind of humour though, that’s why I switch him off!

precisely . that is the point Borat is making but not just European the one best known for being silly is the U.S. A. everywhere but that one is special. there have been propaganda films about the purported evils of communism and Cuba was said to have been evil but then that might have been one of Borat;s points too the purported great ness of a place lied about the lies make it seem even better as nothing said about it is true at least not the slant given to it it makes Cuba all the more appealing than if the lies were never told. the point it makes is that the great qualities exported in the west are really not so great after all and why not export some imaginary greatness from somewhere else for a change. there are examples most notably a place called The Democratic People’s Republic Of North Korea the leader if still alive is called a Dictator well maybe i have this wrong but the name does not imply this and by extension then the U.S.A. must have a Dictator as well even if the Dictator is called the President. also a person could say for example only one mansay Bush is in charge and will remain so or Ronald Reagan who is no longer a President has not been for many years . it seems pretty rigged there not much choice. but let’s say a new one is picked then say he or she is called a dictator because more parties do not appear in evidence.so it continues leaders in other countries which oppose the U.S.are Dictators those which cannot will not or go along are not Dictators.