Slashdot Mirror
Moore Approves Fahrenheit 9/11 Downloads
13.7BillionYears writes "The Sunday Herald reports that Michael Moore has expressed his approval of Fahrenheit 9/11 being downloaded through networks like BitTorrent and eDonkey2000. He also champions a very Lessig-esque outlook in his reasoning. Quentin Tarantino's earlier support for such practices is also mentioned. Meanwhile, Lion's Gate says it has no plans to oppose the practice."
1st post
I saw this documentary yesterday and I was both shocked and impressed. I even cried a lot.
It's the only way to do that in the US. A documentary must be very shocking for people to care about. This doesn't work like that in Europ.
This decision from Michael Moore is not surprising as he has always said that his goal is to touch as many people as possible. I think he simply doesn't care about the money.
Besides that, I think the documentary raises some points while I think Michael Moore goes too far in some others. But this movie definitely deserves its Golden Palm.
Please, go there, watch it. Give it a chance.
Oh and I'm French and I'm living in the US so I'm ready to be modded down and insulted.
Iraq: war to save the U
The whole point of the movie is get a message out, why wouldn't he want it to reach the greatest possible audience?
personally, i would like to see more artists doing this with their works, kind of beats the companies to the punch.
Cogito Eggo Sum, I think therefore I'm a waffle
Post your torrent links here, folks!
/. torrent cluster.
Nothing says "I'm trading this" like a
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
So where is the .torrent file?
the truth shall set US free?
not if the fauxking nazis have anything left to say about it?
tell 'em robbIE?
This truly is a first. I am quite pleased by Moore's decision to broaden his audience by allowing free downloads of the film.
I think this would be a great place to link all your Fahrenheit 9/11 torrents!
I already saw Fahrenheit 9/11 in theatre, and it was truly amazing. I don't care if some of it was not factual, because the bulk of it is just too damn funny to worry about trivial he-said, she-said crap. Think for yourself, but also see the movie... it's amazing, imho. Quite a catalyst for provocative thought and discussion. It's not just funny, it's moving and sad, terrifying at times. The funniest parts are when they look at bush in his candid moments, when his true hick nature seeps through the $5000 suits he wears. I won't spoil it. I will say that during the film, they play audio of the 9/11 attacks over a black screen and people in the audience were crying, it was soooo moving, and sad. Now watch this drive!
So much for the MPAA... gosh it's nice to see their hands tied for a change.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
This is definitely cool. At the very least, I doubt this will hurt the sales of the movie and might help it to spread its message. I personally didn't like it, but to each their own.
/runs like the AC he is
Oh, and um...first post.
Blah
A man who hates America would obviously seek to undermine capitalism. Very fitting indeed.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
Any Michael Moore fans out there be aware this is exactly the fact sites as www.moorewatch.com use to spoil the film's reputation.
Perhaps they try to atract the attention of film corporations to not pay attention to moore, but as with South Park creators, some people use these statements to do harm.
n/t
This post patent pending.
The activist, author and director told the Sunday Herald that, as long as pirated copies of his film were not being sold, he had no problem with it being downloaded.
"I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that," he said.
"I do well enough already and I made this film because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I'm happy this is happening."
Very few people download movies to make a profit off of them. We download the movies because it is convienient to do so (ala iTunes). We also download the movies because the theatres charge entirely too much money (anywhere from $8 to $11 from what I have seen) to watch it.
Let's stop making movies with tons of computer generated special effects, bad acting, and boring plots and then blaming the pirates when it doesn't do well.
Let's make a movie that is powerful, moving, and gets people into the theatres that didn't cost $200 million to make.
here in europe where we have free speech and personal liberty, all of us will be given the opportunity to see this film.
whether you agree with moore or not, you should be VERY VERY WORRIED INDEED that there are persons who do not wish you to see this piece of "vile propaganda" as they would like to call it.
Although moorewatch.com (a rabid anti-Moore site) claims that f911 is available, all the valid links in the pages to which they refer are fakes - either blank or other movies.
I would be interested to hear if anybody has actually seen one of these allgeged bootlegs.
so i can keep my copy in My Shared Folder and not get sued? w00t! ty michael!
Wow, exactly what France said of Hitler ...
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Let freedom ring! Happy 4th of July! Michael Moore cares more about America than our president. Remember, W said,"Others may call you the elite. I call you my base." Time to throw this clown and his whole regime out.
here is a torrent link from suprnova(~1gb)
http://trackerwww.prq.to/download.php/3219853/Mich ael%20Moore%20About%20Filesharing.avi.torrent
But does he approve of his own lies as well?
I belive any respectable director want their movie to be watched many people as possible. In the Farenheit case this goes even further, due the political idea behind the movie.
The problem lies in the millionaries companies that produce the movies. Distributing it for free through the network isn't really interesting (profitable) for them. How long it will take to Warner to distribute a expensive movie in this way ? A long time IMHO.
One: He is an artist, and is extremely flattered anyone would want to watch his movie. Quentin Tarentino likely falls into this category.
Two: His movie is worthless political propagands, not so unlike an infomercial.
Anyone want to guess which it is?
Michael Moore should make a rip of the upcoming DVD, and seed a torrent of it. The day the movie hit the theaters, there were cam copies all over the bit torrent sites.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
Before the movie was released in the states, I downloaded what was supposed to be Farenheit 9/11 off of a P2P network, but what I downloaded wasn't even in the final movie that showed in the states. What I downloaded had to do with "Skull and Bones" and stuff like that. Does anyone know what that is from?
While this was intended to be funny, there is some seriousness here. If I were Moore, and my goal was widest possible distribution, not most money made, putting it up for P2P download is a great idea. However, having gone to the trouble to shoot and edit the movie with high enough quality for movie projection, I'd want the highest possible quality to be downloadable. So, if he were really interested, he'd upload a copy from the original sources.
Or, maybe Moore sees P2P as an advertising medium to drive sales of movie tickets? In which case, you'd probably want a low-quality CAM capture to be floating around the net.
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova/torrents/2031/Fahrenhe it.911.CAM-POT(1).torrentr nova/torrents/2042/Fahrenhe it911.torrent
http://66.90.75.92/sup
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
Valenti said: "Nobody can allow their rights to be stolen because, if you can't retrieve your investment, you're out of the movie business..." Last time I checked, one of the "rights" of the copyright holder is the right to give those rights to others....
Fury as Fahrenheit 9/11 director backs illegal not-for-profit downloads
So hes giving people permission to download _his_ film and this is illegal how? I havnt seen it yet its either out already or comming soon to the UK but im definately gonna grab a copy, being a student and spending my entire 1st year supporting the MPAA i have to watch the budget so im probably not going to see it in the cinema unless i really really like it, but i bought his book so there! People have argued some of his facts and im sure those gun-death figures were wrong but he still gets a +point for this.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Valenti said: "Nobody can allow their rights to be stolen because, if you can't retrieve your investment, you're out of the movie business,
"I don't think there's really a single actor or director in the world who does not believe that if you don't combat piracy, it will devour you in the future."
I've seen this happen so many times that it's the norm for me. A group of my friends used to pirate movies/music/apps/games/etc back in our early days of college. While it is true that there were many things we didn't buy, there were also many things that we DID buy. my DVD collection grew greatly during this period, as did my CD collection and the number of games that I owned. I mean hell, I had a pirated copy of Warcraft III, yet I forked over the $80 to get the special edition of the game when it came out. Yes, there are those assholes who decide that they will never buy anything, but most pirates will pay for things that they really enjoy. Thus, in my experience, Valenti's assertion that piracy is the downfall of the industry is wrong. If they produced something that everyone wants to see or own and sold it at a reasonable price, then even the pirates would go out and buy it.
to a whole slew of troll torrents. I can't wait to see what original stuff our AC trollers link to.
The quality is truly crapazola, the audio barely comprehensible. Wait for a real (screener/DVD) rip, or better yet, go watch it in cinema. Not in cinemas in Finland yet :-(
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
Valenti said: "Nobody can allow their rights to be stolen because, if you can't retrieve your investment, you're out of the movie business,
"I don't think there's really a single actor or director in the world who does not believe that if you don't combat piracy, it will devour you in the future."
I guess he's getting deaf in his old age and didn't hear Moore...
c++;
Regardless of what you think of Moore's film, his statment will almost certainly boost the claim that there are legitimate non-infringing uses for peer-to-peer file sharing networks.
It's much more interesting that the studio is OK with this. I don't see how this benefits them in any way (unless all they do is activist films and don't care about their bottom line either). I'm curious to see how all this plays out.
Of course, the joke could be on us; perhaps Moore's next film will be about how downloaders are undermining the american way of life, or something to that effect. The fact that people will take time out of their busy schedules of pirating Spiderman2 and whatnot in order to download a long, mostly un-entertaining political polemic has interesting implications -- these aren't irresponsible kiddies (who couldn't care less about this stuff). These are adults who presumably have a conscience. Downloaders are everywhere.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
The story says "Fahrenheit 9/11 director backs illegal not-for-profit downloads".
But if the copyright owner backs it, then it's not illegal. Moore had the copyright to begin with, since he made the flick. But wait, he signed it away! So now he has to back people illegally distributing his own brainchild?
Or maybe, just maybe, he should have thought harder before he signed away our rights to some distributor. Disney, was it not? You know.. Extend-copyrights-"temporarily" over-and-over-again-Disney? That one.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
Normally I have the view that the owner of the work has the right to say how copyrighted works are distributed. In that light, 99% of the piracy going on these days IS wrong.
That being said, in the article, Jack Valenti is bleating on about how anybody who downloads any copyrighted work is an infringer/pirate/theif. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Moore has assigned distribution rights (ahem, COPY rights) to LGF, which should have final say as to how the work can be copied. LGF is basically saying "go at it", something which it has every right to do.
(Moore, on the other hand, does not have the right to officially say who can legally download what (since he does not hold distribution rights on his own movie, like nearly any movie/song), but thankfully his views and LGF's views are the same, so the point is moot.)
So in the broadest view, how is this even REMOTELY considered wrong?
Michael Moore doesn't own the rights to the movie, Harvey and Bob Weinstein do. Even if Michael Moore doesn't care if his movie is pirated, I'm pretty sure the distributors do. At best, this can put your conscience at rest but it definitely doesn't mean you can start hosting the illegal copy in your website and expect not to get a cease and desist.
Yeah, I know, torrents are different, and slashdot isn't responsible for what we post. You, however, seem to be thinking that it's now legal to download F911 when saying, "I am quite pleased by Moore's decision to broaden his audience by allowing free downloads of the film." He's not really allowing them, he's just saying he doesn't morally disagree with the practice.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
I love that site... and they link to some really good ones too. Like SnarkBait.com
Thanks for posting this! Slashdot is really in decline lately and we need some alternative places to congregate.
Not that I am advocating people download movies or other material illegally (suprnova.org), but there are some decent copies of Fahrenheit 9/11 available on suprnova.org that you might want to (suprnova.org) check out if you are interested in getting the movie. I found the two copies on suprnova.org that had the most people downloading - unfortunately both cam versions just like all the others - and they were decent quality. I was even able to download one of them at 900KB/s, as I was lucky enough to find someone seeding the file who was on some T3 or something (they were uploading to me at 750KB/s). But like I said, I am not advocating (suprnova.org) that people download this movie, or any other stuff from there.
Somehow I have a greater desire to go out and pay to see it at a theater.
I don't have a fast enough connection but the attitude of making it available in such a way makes me want to go see it even more...
If this actually causes an increase in sales, then it will send a strong message to those who are persistant at control and suing teh consumers with claims of hurting sales.
The linked article was written by Dave Kopel a former Assistant Attorney General of Colorado. He is a libertarian. Like Michael Moore, he endorsed and voted for Ralph Nader in the last election, so he's hardly a firebreathing Republican (though some of the magazine he publishes in are right-wing)
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
[1] An interview with an Iraqi woman where the subtitles are off the bottom of the screen.
The real question is, does he approve of Fahrenheit 9/11 downloads?
Wow. I've thought that I would give away my record (when it's done) to those who would want to download it, but frankly, I never thought that I'd see a comment like that from a movie maker, whose movie is currently in theaters.
That is a bold move, and probably making Jack Valenti spin in his grave.
Oh, he's not dead yet? Well, I guess you can't have everything...
Michael
Moore
is
a
LIAR
Documentary is not the appropriate word for this movie. "Op-Ed", and Moore himself calls it is OK, as would be "fiction," "fantasy," or "docudrama." But not documentary.
Happy 4th of July, all. While I'll be enjoying beer, hotdogs, and fireworks, Michael Moore will probably be shitting on a U.S. flag with Fidel Castro, Kim Jung Il, and Jacques Chirac. Wonder if this free download thing is for real or Moore bullshit... that man can barely speak one sentence without lying or contradicting himself.
Maybe we should add that the POT CAM is missing a significant portion of the movie (beginning of CD2).
What message? You don't actually take that seriously do you? I thought the only one who was taking it seriously was Moore himself. Even the president and the GOP aren't taking it seriously.
Everyone I know saw it as a poorly done work that would have gone nowhere except for the hype.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Wow, great news and good to hear from the point of view of those of us who think today's copyright laws are absolutely ridiculous. This will also serve as a good example to the rest of the movie industry to show that most people would rather spend $10 and go to see a film than spend hours tracking down and further hours downloading a crappy-quality movie to watch with their shitty little computer speakers in their office chairs.
That said, there's still a gaping hole for someone to implement an iTunes Music Store-style system to easily and reliably download movies off of the Internet. An Akamai-based distribution network that could reliably deliver 200-300kb/s download speed vs. a spotty BitTorrent or Kazaa connection would make, perhaps, a $4.99 price tag very attractive for most people. Couple that with DVD burners and you suddenly have a practical distribution medium.
Apple recently added the capability to view movie trailers from within the iTunes interface. I thin that's more than just a subtle hint at what they might be planning. But with Apple they always wait to get something perfect, so it may still be a few years.
I still think movie studios should start selling DVDs of movies right at the theatre when they are playing. Perhaps you could pay $30 for the DVD and get to see the movie like you normally would as well, plus you get to take it home. It would also give people not able to see a movie due to it being sold out something better than leaving empty-handed.
___
Cogito cogito, ergo cogito sum.
I saw this documentary yesterday and I was both shocked and impressed. I even cried a lot.
Moore is good at what he does: propagandize. A thorough, well-researched, well-written essay on the topic would probably be more informative than a movie, but it would also be a lot more boring. Moore can "reach" a lot more (stupid) people with a movie that has lots of "scary" and "touching" scenes.
This decision from Michael Moore is not surprising as he has always said that his goal is to touch as many people as possible. I think he simply doesn't care about the money.
I think he does care about money, as his not-quite-middle-class lifestyle would suggest. In this case, more people being swayed to his cause is worth more to him in the long run than some quick cash. He has his priorities in order.
Besides that, I think the documentary raises some points while I think Michael Moore goes too far in some others. But this movie definitely deserves its Golden Palm.
Answer me this: if I make a movie that has loads and loads of fabricated bullshit, but I make a lot of people cry with it, does it deserve a Golden Palm? Is being "moving" and "passionate" more important than being factual and reasonable? It sounds like you think the answer ot that question is yes, though I imagine that you would qualify it with a statement like, "...yes, but only if the said movie advances the superstitious beliefs that I adhere to!"
Please, go there, watch it. Give it a chance.
No, thank you. The movie is based on presuppositions that I reject. You can't get a true conclusion from a false premise, so why should I waste my time seeing this pile o' poo? To see some "moving" scenes? There are plenty of movies that provide that without having to endure stupid, Leftist progaganda.
Oh and I'm French and I'm living in the US so I'm ready to be modded down and insulted.
J'adore la culture, la langue, et la cuisine francais. Mais je deteste la "leftisme," si c'est francais ou americian. Une culture riche n'excuse pas la stupidite, et la socialisme est stupide.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Second, this is a movie people want to see in a theater, and a movie people probably want to have a decent copy of to show friends. Although this is a movie one might see to be in with a peer group, that is not the only reason.
And so I think, politics aside, this is the way movies should be made. The buzz should be consistant with the movie, and should create a community of viewers that will propel the product. It would also be nice if studios would make the theater more of a partnet, so that the theaters once more cared about the viewing experience, instead of how much popcorn they can sell, or how many viewing they can fit in a day.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Calling it a documentary doesn't make it one. Not if you say it a thousand times or more.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Then why doesn't he release a decent copy of his movie on the internet to begin with. This copy that everyone is getting the torrent for is not only a really crappy cam version, from what I've read elsewhere it is not even a complete copy of the film. Its missing the whole bit about the Patriot Act from what I hear. At least put out decent stuff if you want people to view it.
and
Fahrenheit 9/11: The temperature at which Michael Moore's pants burn
There is little else to say.
Anyone know any decent torrents? im currently downloading this which looks like it has 2 500mb mpeg files in it i havnt checked the quaility yet. Anyone know of a decent xvid/divx 700mb job from a DVD? lets avoid those cams and use our powerful slashdot effect to boost a good torrent!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Moore credibility problems continue with release of factually incorrect F9/11
"I do well enough already and I made this film because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I'm happy this is happening."
What a bullshit artist. Why didn't you release this on TV or cable instead? Why didn't you offer a Bit Torrent from day one, rather going to the movies?
Cause it IS about the dead presidents.
I know I am probibly going to get modded down for this, but there are serious mistakes in this movie, and they were willfully made. For a comprehensive list of the problems with this movie, check out this. Mod me down if you are afraid of the truth, but this needs to be mentioned.
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
and formed a completely different opinion of the film. the film was custom tailored to bush haters and the tin-foil hat crowd. it started out with a bang in the first 10 minutes by espousing alternate histories of what happened in the 2000 election followed by several paranoid conspiracies (including bush helped plan 9-11 and bush went into afghanistan for oil).
after the first 10 minutes, however, it quickly devolved into long boring stretches of raw footage with no voiceover or script. it seemed to me he was trying to stretch the film into feature length just so he could charge $9/pop for it.
i can't really blame him. it certainly can't be easy to make a documentary from falsehoods and far out innuendo.
picture this:
you are michael moore. you've got all the footage for your movie and you are in the editing process. you're sitting at your computer with your box of donuts carefully crafting your next lie and innuendo. your carefully researched script has you saying in a voiceover "george bush made the claim that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction, a claim that no other president or politician made before him." you've decided to show a video clip of bill clinton looking all presidential with his "i feel your pain" look on his face. while you are editing this together, you hear in the background a cnn report that shows bill clinton and al gore making claims that saddam hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
you curse loudly and quickly edit the script and the video footage in hopes that your finished film won't make you look like a complete retard.
your next clip you decided to find footage for is the one where you say "people who join the military are statistically more likely to abuse their spouse, kick their dog, have sex with goats and murder people with dark skin." you find some footage of goofy looking servicemen having sex with goats to put into your movie at this point. after you've put it all in and made it for your final movie, one of your editors says "i think that might be going a little overboard with the anti-soldier rhetoric, maybe we ought to take it out." when your other editors agree, you fly off in a rage throwing the box of krispy kremes across the room, before you edit out the most overt anti-soldier footage in the film.
after all the editing is said and done and you think you got out all the stuff that is blatantly false as well as the stuff that will show what you really think about america and the troops, you are left with 10 minutes of a film. the election is coming near and you realize that at the pace you are going, you will miss the push that the election will give to your movie and you won't make anywhere near the amount of money that you hope to. so you decide to show long stretches of footage of a woman who lost her son in iraq and the grief she feels over it. don't worry about a script, perhaps the first ten minutes of tin-foil hat conspiracies will be enough to satiate the nutcases and bush-haters.
unfortunately, when you film is done, in the can and in distributor's hands, it's clear that you missed editing out many of the falsehoods that make you look like a tard, but you hang on to the hope that the french film festival will look past the factual errors, contradictions and general boringness of the film and only be able to see it's direct anti-americanism. knowing that it doesn't require a good salesman to sell anti-americanism to the french or liberal elites, you hope that it's enough to get their praise.
your hopes come true and you have donut money for the rest of your life.
in all, i think this film was built to appeal to the paranoid choir and as such has no chance of convincing anyone who isn't already convinced.
-bk
it is just too damn funny to worry about trivial he-said, she-said crap. Think for yourself, but also see the movie...
I debate Christians as a hobby coming from the position that evidence within scripture excludes it from being the perfect word of a divine being. One of the typical challenges I get from Christians is this: "Read the Bible for yourself and make your own opinion." Here, you make the same challenge. If I don't actually go see the movie, then I am not "thinking for myself."
Since I know the claims he made in the movie, and these claims can be fact-checked independently of seeing the movie, why is this not "thinking for myself"? It it perhaps because you're not interested in fact checking? Perhaps you're not interested in facts at all! Maybe you just like scary images and tear-jerking scenes. Is that it? Or is it something else? Please explain because I'm always curious when Leftists and rabid Christians use the exact same arguments against me.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Michael Moore's career as a rabble-rousing populist has been marked by a frequent pattern of dissembling and factual inaccuracy. He distorted the chronology of his first movie, "Roger & Me"; repeatedly peddled the myth that the Bush administration gave $43 million to the Taliban; published two books, Stupid White Men and Dude, Where's My Country? , that were riddled with factual errors and distortions; and won an Academy Award for "Bowling for Columbine," a documentary based on a confused and often contradictory argument that features altered footage of a Bush-Quayle campaign ad, a misleading presentation of a speech by National Rifle Association president Charlton Heston, and other factual distortions.
With his new documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," which won the prestigious Palme D'Or at the Cannes Film Festival and was #1 at the US box office last week, Moore has surged to new prominence -- and come under increasing scrutiny. His staff has made much of elaborate fact-checking that was reportedly conducted on the film. And fortunately, it appears to be free of the silly and obvious errors that have plagued Moore's past work, such as the claim in Stupid White Men that the Pentagon planned to spend $250 billion on the Joint Strike Fighter in 2001, a sum that represented over 80 percent of the total defense budget request for the year.
However, "Fahrenheit 9/11" is filled with a series of deceptive half-truths and carefully phrased insinuations that Moore does not adequately back up. As Washington Monthly blogger Kevin Drum and others have noted, the irony is that these are the same tactics frequently used by the target of the film, George W. Bush. Moore and his chief antagonist have more in common than viewers might think.
The 2000 Florida recount
Reviewing the 2000 election during the opening of the film, Moore uses a quote from CNN legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin to make a deeply misleading suggestion about the results of the media recounts conducted in Florida:
But the recount conducted by a consortium of media organizations found something quite different, as Newsday recently pointed out. If the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court had gone ahead, the consortium found that Bush would have won the election under two different scenarios: counting only "undervotes," or taking into account the reported intentions of some county electoral officials to include "overvotes" as well. During the CNN appearance from which Moore
Michael Moore is a "documentarian" in the same sense that Leni Riefenstahl was a "documentarian", and Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary in the same sense that Triumph of the Will was a documentary. (Both movies also won prominent French awards... coincidence?) Fahrenheit 9/11 makes Fox News seem like a bastion of journalistic integrity by comparison.
Michael Moore's arguments lack a logical flow or any direction whatsoever. He seems to just string together a sequence of often unrelated anti-Bush/Iraq War arguments (which have the depth of talking points) hoping to rile up his already anti-Bush/Iraq War audience.
Moore builds his whole argument upon omissions, discarding any and all facts which are not in accordance with his world view. The claim that there are no factual inaccuracies in the movie is partly true; however, this is no great feat, as the movie is filled with omissions, innuendos, and logical fallacies (post hoc ergo propter hoc, etc). For example, I could very easily convince someone with no knowledge of 20th century European History that Hitler was a great guy, simply through omissions and without making one factually inaccurate statement i.e. Hitler was a great connoisseur of art; his love of art lead to him amassing a great art collection, spanning art from all over Europe. Hitler also implemented economic policies which restored Germany's shattered economy and made Germany into one of the most powerful economic powers of its time. He was much loved by his people, and took great pride in his heritage, etc, etc, etc. I'm sure my point has become evident, and I no longer need to pursue this perverted example.
Moore is well known for his editing prowess, and I have no reason to believe that he does not continue using his "skills" in Fahrenheit 9/11. There are several well known instances of Moore's editing in Bowling For Columbine i.e. Heston's tie changing colours, the clip of Heston's speech not being the one he gave right after Columbine, but rather a different one altogether (1st Google Result on Query), etc. I'm sure there are many other examples in both movies.
Moore makes several assertions in Fahrenheit 9/11 which not only make no logical sense, but also contradict with other statements he made in the movie. Moore mentions the well documented effort on Saddam's behalf to murder George H. W. Bush (probably intended as an argumentum ad hominem), then he refers to the sovereign nation of Iraq, which had never threatened or harmed a single American life. Ok, let's see, Moore himself admits that Saddam tried to kill H. W. Bush. Furthermore, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and constantly threatened Saudi Arabia and Israel. First of all, there are plenty of Americans in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Israel. Furthermore, plenty of American lives were lost in Desert Storm, which was clearly in response to a war of unilateral aggression on Saddam's behalf (then again, Moore may very well oppose Desert Storm, as well as England and France declaring war on Germany when they invaded Poland... who knows). After the end of Desert Storm, Americans remained in the region and constantly flew sorties to enforce the no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq and make sure they minimized the number of Kurds and Shiites massacred by Saddam and his gang of (Sunni) thugs. Anyways, the Iraqis constantly attempted to shoot down the American planes that were merely enforcing the UN sanctioned No-fly Zones. (Seems like threatening American lives to me.)
Ok, moving on... Moore attempts to make it seem like there is no link between Saddam and international terrorism, where in reality Saddam offered USD $10000-20000 to the family members of Palestinian suicide bombers (what a great guy) (Google Link, scroll down)
Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
I'm glad he supports it. Not a whole hell of a lot he could do about it anyways. The only difference is, now he's got a posting on slashdot, which will up the rate of downloads exponentially. Smart move, really. Now if only businesses were willing to embrace p2p, I'm sure they could find a decent compromise. Like a business model that supports/rewards the user, whom a business would be shit out of luck if they didn't have. Honestly, they should kiss our asses, not sue us to hell. Piracy will never dissappear though. It's as futile a battle as the War on (some) Drugs.
I've read all the attacks on the film...none of them point to any factual errors. What the F911-detractors don't like is that Moore presents certain facts to make a point. "We invaded Afghanistan" and "Afghanistan's natural gas pipeline was built very quickly." Moore puts these facts in proximity to imply we invaded partly for oil. You can't deny the facts, but the implication is debatable.
The only way Moore can express his political ideas is through a movie. Because a debate allows the other side a chance to respond.
Movies come from the TOP and go down to the little people. When its over, Michael is in france sipping wine, so if you have anything you don't agree with, too bad.
Ahha! One of the criteria for propaganda is met. Don't express your propaganda in a forum which allows response!
I could go on about how the movie is totally contrived and fully of Michael Moores america hating shit, but I'm not that interested. Let him do it and awaken the sleeping giant. Let him give John Kerry a nice big liberal SWIRLY in the movie theater bathroom. Because this can only hurt the DNC.
I went to the flea market this morning and saw it on a table for $10. I have bought from this guy before - purchased Matrix Revolutions because I heard it was so bad and I got League Of Extrordinary Gentlemen - both were of acceptable quality to watch. I imagine this one is no different.
Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
Have a nice day.
If he were crying about his copyright being infringed, he would have been labelled as a rank hypocrite.
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
I wouldn't see his anti-American film if it was free. It's pure shit folks.
And this drivel about him being such a great guy...have you not heard the interviews from his formar staff? He made them work 12 - 16 hour days with no breaks, while he sat on his fat ass & ate pizza & such. He's in this for the $$ & you suckers are giving it to him.
from the Sunday Heral article:
"File sharing causes tremendous financial loss to the movie business, untold hardship to support workers, and costs thousands of jobs."
Yeah right... maybe they just need to pay their A list a bit less
who would ever want to waste their disk space with propaganda?
It's a movie - so your answer is, "of course."
Your terse reply indicates that you dislike my argument and probably dislike me as well. You probably don't think that I deserve much thought or attention, and that's led you to write something really stupid.
"Of course [it deserves a Golden Palm]"
Okay, suppose I make a movie which states that brutal black men rape innocent, beautiful white women 500,000 times a year and get away with it. I show one scene of a white woman who has actually been raped by a black man and really tug some heart strings with it. If I can make that scene passionate enough, would this film deserve a Golden Palm despite the fabricated (and quite distasteful) bullshit that I included?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Can you imagine what Liberals children must be like? Imagine some left-wing dipshit taking the kids to see this film. Then the kids start thinking Moore is a role model and shit.
It just seems hilarious, because while conservatives will have their kids learn from Reagan, the Pope, William F Buckley, etc. Liberals will have these role models like fatty Moore, screamin Dean, boring Gore, Stuart Smalley, Genine Garafalo, etc.
A generation of mentally handicapped in the making! The new indentured classs. I can't wait... lol
As it always is with propoganda, they want it seen and heard by everyone in any way possible as many times as possible so that if you see/hear it enough times you will start to believe it hook, line, and sinker, no matter how much B.S. it really is. The only difference between this loser and someone like him in China is that in China they would force you to see it every day.
(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
"I don't think there's really a single actor or director in the world who does not believe that if you don't combat piracy, it will devour you in the future."
Blockbuster stars and directors might hate piracy because it cuts into their multimillion dollar paydays, but smaller stars are willing to work for "hollywood minimum wage" just to get seen in a movie or TV show in the hopes that exposure will lead to those big paydays in the future...
Superman 2 blew it out of the water in a single day.
He sold it to Lion's Gate. What do you want him to do, buy a lot of film, do all the transcoding himself and then drive around in a van and give them to theaters? You know, distributors DO have a purpose (well at least until digital distribution and advertising become the mainstream).
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
French bashing is hardly only an American thing, go to Canada and start talking to people about Quebec. I'm sure there's plenty of French jokes in in the UK as well.
Tubby Reisenthal's statement that you can download his movie on the internet still will not correct the glaring inaccuracies in F911. It is just more smoke to distract you from the content.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Does Moore own the film? Why didn't he put it in the public domain if he doesn't like copyright?
Fahrenheit 9/11 Screener0 42/Fahrenh eit911.torrent
a hrenh eit911.DVD.iso.torrent
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2
Fahrenheit 9/11 Screener on DVD
http://66.90.75.92/suprnova//torrents/2042/F
In the Entertainment Weekly, Moore says he thought the first weekend would score 10 M$ (maybe 12 M$), but the movie actually had 24 M$ and was first at the US box office! Who cares of illegal copies? The producers have twice the money in their pockets!
And like many said in this thread, this movie had been made to be viewed, so the more people that sees it, the best (Moore thinks) it is for the democracy.
Just because Mike Moore says he doesn't mind if you download or distribute for no profit 'his' film, I doubt that gives you the full legal right to do so in the eyes of the Law.
I wonder what financing partners Bob and Harvey Weinstein think of Moore's comments encouraging the 'piracy' of their investment?
Chowder! C'mon say it Frenchie!
Simpson's Reference
That's Spiderman 2.
Damn broken coffeemaker.
No, I know... Le Penn is a good example... Homeboy ROCKS!
If Moore is against Copyright, he should make a film about the DMCA, the Sonny-Bonno copyright extention act, software patents, and similar freedom-inhibiting laws. That kind of film could really make a difference.
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
Easiest way to get the torrents is to google for them:
"Filetype:torrent Fahrenheit"
Here's one of your "Deceits":
Deceit 8:
Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read a story to a classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the September 11 attacks.
What Moore did not tell you:
Gwendolyn Tose'-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary School, praised Bush's action: "I don't think anyone could have handled it better." "What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"...
She said the video doesn't convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush's presence had a calming effect and "helped us get through a very difficult day."
"Sarasota principal defends Bush from 'Fahrenheit 9/11' portrayal," Associated Press, June 24, 2004.
Yeah. That's a "deceit". The real deceit here is the idea that the only two choices available are to sit there retardedly reading My Pet Goat, making an entire elementary school of kids targets, or to jump up and scream "Holy bejeezers kids! We're ALL GONNA DIEE!!!!"
He could've calmly told the kids that he had to go do some of the things that Presidents do, thanked them, and left.
Bush shouldn't even have gone into that school that day. He was told the first plane hit the WTC *before* he went in. The WTC had already been hit by terrorist attack in 1996, and he'd already been briefed that al Qaeda were planning on hijacking airplanes. This is 1 + 1 kind of thinking, especially if you're the man charged with protecting the United States.
The sheer bizarreness of a loaded jetliner crashing into the WTC ought to have been enough to get him to delay his photo op and wait for more information. He didn't.
Face it, he was asleep at the wheel that day. If you supposedly value honesty so much, at least be honest with yourself.
How many days does it take for that crudware to timeout?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Anyone who dresses like Micheal Moore isn't too concerned about money.
I'm sure Moore is pleased to know that people buy into his image.
We think that making money is fine as long as you're not destroying people's lives
What qualifies and quantifies "ruining people's lives"? Be specific. Don't give examples. I want to know how you measure it.
and ruining the environment
What qualifies and quantifies "ruining the environment"? Be specific. Don't give examples. I want to know how you measure it.
The sooner you realize that you can't answer these questions without falling back on subjective, emotional, and superstitious arguments, you'll see while I reject Leftism wholesale. Your expected response to your admitting your failure will be to call me "unfeeling" or "cruel," which is an ad hominem argument.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
He sold it to Lion's Gate. What do you want him to do, buy a lot of film, do all the transcoding himself and then drive around in a van and give them to theaters? You know, distributors DO have a purpose (well at least until digital distribution and advertising become the mainstream).
He sold it to Miramax (a Disney corporation) who then sold it onto Lion's Gate for distribution. Lion's Gate doesn't have the copyright, only a license.
There is such a thing as non-exclusive rights, which Moore could have sold to Miramax, rather than the copyright itself, which he did.
For example; if you release software under the GPL (assuming it's made entirely by yourself) you can still go ahead and sell it, since the GPL is a non-exclusive license. Vice versa, if you want to release your stuff under the GPL, you have to make sure you didn't sell the copyright (or an exclusive license).
Moore could have thought of it before he sold his/our rights. It wasn't like this whole p2p/copyright/Disney|MPAA==Evil thing just dropped out of the clear blue sky, now is it?
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
a beowulf cluster sharing F9/11
Dude, you are like so freaking right, man! Let's stick it to the Bush Evil Empire. Who cares if truth was thrown out the window. Its all about getting the unelected Chimp out of the White House.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
'NUFF SAID :D
Worth noting that this is *still* a copyrighted work. Just because the star has said he doesn't mind doesn't make it legal. Ethical, maybe, but legal, no. If he *really* cared he'd remove the copyright (although I doubt his backers would allow him).
Read reviews of shopping cart software
I love it. It's so frequent. You can't attack my argument, so you go for the "weak point" by attacking my .sig. Did you think that I wouldn't be able to defend my point of view (which is skepticism by the way)?
Yes, genius, tens of millions of Africans are being poisoned by the antiviral drugs they're not taking.
I suppose that if you'd read further in the site, you'd realize that African "AIDS" and North American "AIDS" are quite, quite different. You'd also learn that the AIDS cases in Africa were ESTIMATED, not tested. In other words, "well-meaning" scientists have guessed that X million people in Africa have AIDS.
If Moore's film were actually full of shit, like you say,
Except that I didn't say that. Feel free to beat up strawmen, but it won't convince me to your point of view.
then people would just ignore it like hundreds of other documentaries.
That's stupid. If the facts are wrong but it's really "moving" and "passionate," then people will see it. This is how fiction works.
People only get this defensive when they know deep down inside that they're wrong.
That's not the "only" reason as you self-consolingly proclaim. Another reason that the Republicans could be all pissed-off is because people are being swayed by emotional arguments instead of facts. Do you remember how all the liberals were upset over "The Passion of the Christ"? That was another fictional movie, but it was very passionate and moving. It caused a mini-revival of sorts. I think both movies are stupid for the same reason: they rely on cheap sentimentality instead of facts and reason to convince people to their point of view. It's effective, but irritating to folks like me who reject superstition and emotion for the sake of promoting reason and evidence.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
There is no such thing in that stories about Hey dude!!! pirating is OK. There is a cold logic behind Moore's warm aproval...
And the logic is simple: This movie is a COUNTER-PROPAGANDA. More people will see it, More people will be against Bush administration.
By the way, im sure that Moore's wish his movie to be broadcast on national television
"Insanity in individuals is something rare, but in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it is the rule." - Nietzsche
And calling the republican party human doesn't make it so. Not if you say it a thousand times or so.
--
CodeRed, the lower user #. No relation to SirCam.
That's rich.
There can be no doubt about it. Anyone that still supports Bush hates America.
The bittorrent client available at ei.kefro.st is banned on many trackers because it's over a year outdated. Use BitTornado instead.
Read that article. Please.
Yes, I am ready to be modded down.
It's the distributors' movie, And they don't want it downloaded.
But who is the copyright owner? Didn't a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company fund production of this film as a "work made for hire"?
Um, WTF are you talking about? The POT release is *the* worst, most amateur cam release I've ever seen in my life, ever. The image is framed terribly (you're missing a big portion of the screen), it constantly flickers, the sound is almost inaudible, and to add insult to injury, they used *3* wrong formats distributing the thing. They rar'd iso's of VCDs? 1 gig? WTF? Distribute a 250 meg DIVX and let the lamers still using VCDs transcode it themselves.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley
Without French naval assistance at the battle of Yorktown, General Cornwallis would have escaped, and the Americans would not have inflicted a crushing blow against the Brittish occupation of the colonies. Indeed, the Brittish themselves would probably have slaughtered American resistance long before without money, arms, and supplies from king Louis VI.
While the U.S. has oftentimes been at odds with French policy, we must remember that the U.S. exists mostly due to the efforts of France.
So as my country celebrates the Star Spangled Banner today, perhaps we should spend a few moments listening to the Marseillaise as well.
There's also a good-sized chunk (15-20 mins) from the middle of the movie missing. I know this because I downloaded and watched the CAM version the day before I went to see it in the theatre.
How many times did we have to bail her ass out? Just asking.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm
He supports terrorist funding for his movie to be shown in the middle east. He is the master of misinformation and I feel sorry for anyone believing such garbage information. Read the link above and you might get an idea that the entire movie is based on pure unresearched errors.
Just as was seen with the fall of Bill Clinton, Americans have no tolerance for liars.
The Nation Review is a conservative journal. But they publish folks who aren't traditional conservatives, sometimes quite often.
Most of the writers are highly critical, incidentally, of the Republican Party. And they often promote ideas acceptable, or at least interesting, to a thoughtful leftist. For example, they are highly critical of the "war on drugs".
This is beside the point, though. The author of the article is an intelligent libertarian who voted for Nader. It's not a knee-jerk conservative response.
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
You lefties have a strange definition of patriotism.
This is not a documentary! Please review the definition of a documentary.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
Moore himself called Farenheit 9/11 a movie.
If the French hadn't supported the American Independence in 1776 there's a great chance that America would still be part of the United Kingdom. ( An Outline of American History - Chapter 3: The Road to Independence )
while (!asleep()) sheep++
It's also documented that 60% of the take of this film will go to charities designated by Disney. It's not surprising that Moore and Lions Gate doesn't care about the money at this point.
I am speaking for myself here, but the only movies i tend to see in the cinema are the flicks that have alot of special/sound effects that a cammed copy i would be watching on my 'puter would not reach : On the other hand, documentaries, whereas sound is the most important, isn't too important for me to see in the cinema, as i get the geste of it in a cammed-version.
I agree with your mainpoint though, where you say that it would be in his best interest to put a copy up for download : Then again, don't think Lionhead studios would be too cool with that.
But political nontheless.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
quoting:
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
--
This quote is entirely irrelevent to any discussion anyone may have regarding Michael Moore, current events, and specifically, Michael Moore's documentary on current events.
(Other instances of the quote usually accompany remarks about how Goering may / may not have engineered a major event may or also may not be relevent)
Too bad the rights are held By the Weinstein brothers, not Michael Moore.
he doesn't have the authority to grant distribution rights, because he sold the film to Miramax, who sold it to harvey and brother because they were too scared to release it.
Moore constantly characterizes himself as "working class". The thing is he is living in an expensive $1 million a year apartment complex in Manhattan. The man is rich and could easily retire if he was not intent on continuing to rack up more fame and fortune.
He cares about money, yet he likes to pretend he is "working class". Utterly disgusting.
That was the French monarchy. The complaints are usually aimed at the cowardice and weakness of the French republic which didn't emerge for at least a decade after that (1789?).
Do NOT download this CAM! If you look here you will see that people who have seen both versions have reported that there is at least 20 minutes missing from the middle of the movie! This is a critical part too. Sorry Vcdquality.
What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
Jack Valenti Quote: "I don't think there's really a single actor or director in the world who does not believe that if you don't combat piracy, it will devour you in the future."
I'm gonna take a stab at this one. Hmmm, let me think. Michael Moore maybe???? Hmmm.... Quentin Tarentino?
I sure hope they didn't quote him saying this after telling him Moore and Tarentino's positions.
Believe me, I'd love to see a small DivX or Xvid rip, but can you see lamers using transcode?
The reason so many CAM and TeleSync rips are distributed as VCDs is for the convenience of end users - 'hang the quality, let's get it out there and get people watching it'. And with TV resolution at 352x288, who can blame them?
The multipart rar-chives? Well, from what I've been told, it's to let a legion of 0wnz0red boxes on xDSL connections be as useful as a single big server on a T3, by distributing the bandwidth requirement. I agree though, it's still very annoying, especially on a slow machine (takes time to unroll) or with low disk space (effectively, you need double the space to d/l and then unroll).
Let it be known, this 'Screener' is a Cam. It does have a menu and chapters though. But half way through it stops and you have to manually go to the next chapter.
Offers to Help Promote "Fahrenheit 9/11"
(SACRAMENTO/SAN DIEGO/SAN FRANCISCO) The terrorist group Hezbollah has reached out to distributors of Michael Moore's anti-military propaganda flick, "Fahrenheit 9/11" with an offer to help promote the film.
The report of Hezbollah's involvement came in Thursday's London newspaper, The Guardian, with the headline, "Fahrenheit 9/11 gets help offer from Hezbollah." Hezbollah's endorsement underscores the argument made by Move America Forward that Moore's movie is designed to undermine support for the war on terrorism.
Earlier this week, Move America Forward Vice Chair Melanie Morgan (radio talk show host on San Francisco's KSFO AM 560), had declared: "It would be more appropriate to have this propaganda shown at Al Qaeda training camps rather than American movie theaters." Morgan's statement was met by howls of protest from Moore's associates.
Move America Forward Chairman, Howard Kaloogian, today offered an apology in regards to Morgan's comment:
"I regret that we limited our comments solely to the terrorist organization Al Qaeda and failed to mention that other terrorist groups, like Hezbollah, would also rally behind this film.
"Fahrenheit 9/11 serves one purpose and one purpose only: to undermine the United States' war against terrorism. This is precisely why Move America Forward has asked Americans to register their dissatisfaction with movie theaters that choose to show this film.
"Now is the time for Americans to stand united behind the men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan to preserve our safety and national security, not promote the agenda of radical terrorist organizations like Hezbollah," Kaloogian concluded.
Hezbollah is a Middle East based terrorist organization, which according to the U.S. State Department has killed more than 300 American citizens in terrorist attacks. The group is blamed for the October 23, 1983 attack on a U.S. marine barracks in Lebanon. Move America Forward Vice Chair, Melanie Morgan, covered the horrific attacks as a young radio reporter. Deaths of those marines deeply impacted her and underscored her commitment to fighting terrorism.
So now not only is the net clogged with SPAM and porn its going to deal with this Big Fat White Man's BULL SHIT. Mod me down who cares this country is getting exactly what it's dumb ass sheeple have earned.
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
With the 4th of July ahead, I thought it is time to watch Fahrenheit 9/11. At first I was surprised that this documentary won the first price in Cannes this year, but now I have to admit, "i'm lovin' it".
Although I can't agree with some of his conclusions. I like the way he leads us, especially Americans themselves, to remember and think about some very important issues. Going thru numerous points of why the "war-president" is wrong. Moore, at the end, finds a wonderful quote* on what may be the true reason:
"It does not matter if the war is not real. For when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous."
"A hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance, this new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either Eurasia or east Asia but to keep the very structure of society in tact" *...George Orwell's 1984
>> Had I been going to bed earlier every night? Have I been sleeping later? Has Tyler been in charge longer and l
This is a "documentary" only in the sense that Joseph Goebbels produced documentaries.
It's a propoganda film for one particular political point of view.
What facts that there are in this movie are colored through that prism.
Corporatism != Free Market
I personally saw nearly EVERY clip in the movie before, and I had the time to do so. They are not out of context.
I was very disappointed in the film. It was so watered down and simplified, I can't see any reasonable dispute against the validity of the film. Its as if his lawyers and wife made him cut out anything questionable for his own saftey.
In fact, it only makes it MORE CLEAR that the people attacking the film have dishonorable motives. He could have taped the rubble from the towers for 2 hours and they would be bashing it just as much.
I wanted some new facts, since he has a huge team of researchers and I don't. Instead I got a bunch of emotional junk. (Obviously, I'm a minority. This is truely a documentary for the masses.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Can anyone confirm that the hideous POT release is missing about 15 minutes in the middle? I remember seeing stuff about the Patriot act in the preview, it seems to have been edited out of this version.
Moore was against the invasion of Afghanistan, until he figured out he could use the fighting there to beat Bush with: "Invading Iraq distracts from Afghanistan. That's just one example of Moore's hypocrisy.
If you value honesty you'd admit that.
It's too bad we didn't have cameras focused on FDR when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. I wonder if it took him more than seven minutes to react. Or what did President Clinton do when the WTC was bombed the first time? What he do in the first seven minutes?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
France needed help twice (WW1 and WW2).
And they helped your ass once (see elsewhere in this thread for details). And I'm sure they'd do it again, if YOUR HOME COUNTRY WAS INVADED. But they're not going to get their feet wet in some shitty Arab country that means nothing to most people, except of course GW Bush and his oil frenzied cronies.
He owns the copyright.
He can give permission to copy and distribute to whomever he damn well pleases, and nobody else that he has given such license to (eg, the distributors you mention) can do a thing about it unless there had already been an exclusivity contract between Michael and these distributors, which considering Mr Moore just gave his approval for downloading the movie isn't likely, since his making this statement on the record like this would set him up for an absolutely _massive_ lawsuit (and Michael Moore is no idiot, which is why I dismiss it as improbable)
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
So you expect, as a non-paying customer, Michael Moore to go out and waste his own money and/or time to bring you a top-quality movie rip of his film, do you? WTF?
He's already said you're more than welcome to copy it yourself, if you can. If you want a better quality rip out there, you go hire out the film and equipment and make one. That's the open source, information-is-free way - copying and distribution is handled by everyone, via the magic of the internet and all those wonderful technologies we all have these days.
Michael Moore - unlike almost every other filmmaker out there - won't send the Intellectual Property Gestapo round to your home and hit you with massive fines and penalties, if you have the temerity to use those technologies.
"Or, maybe Moore sees P2P as an advertising medium to drive sales of movie tickets?"
Even left wingers have to eat, sleep, and pay rent too. He's not forcing you to pay him in order to see his movie, but I'm sure he'd appreciate it if you did. If you paid him nothing, he owes you nothing.
Jesus christ, what a whiner.
Yes, about 15 minutes are missing. I have seen both the download and the movie in theatres (twice now).
Lets do a brief recap here:
6 679/K=diplomatic+relati ons+libya/v=2/SID=w/l=WS1/R=1/H=0/*-http://www.cnn .com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/28/libya.us.ap
a 22 .shtml
Circa late 90s the Republican party spear heads a big campaign to impeach to Bill Clinton based upon the fact that he scored a BJ from a Intern and lied about it.
Flash forward to now:
The United States goes to war with a country that has been under some form of embargo/watch for over 10 years based upon the premise that they have nukes (which turns out later to be false). People in power who are blatant supporters of the military action (Bush, Powell, Rice...etc) are televised several times prior to the war stating that Iraq has no weapons of significance (WOMD) and suddenly tell us the exact opposite of what we were told before. This can't be disputed.
Now, had this been a Democrat in office of any kind, you can bet your ass the Republican part would be trying to get a impeachment right about now. There would have been a ton of huge investigations where they broke out a microscope and shoved it up whatever Democrats ass they could find to dig up as much dirt as possible.
What is happening in the US today makes ZERO sense. For example, under primarily a Republican led government:
1. We are establishing ties with one of the Worlds most well documented terrorists...Kadaffi.
http://rds.yahoo.com/S=276
2. Under the guise of cracking down on terrorism, we attack a country that obviously has nothing and is just a bunch of poor people who have suffered enough abuse. And in this, we ignore well documented terrorist hot beds such as Egypt. It is a well known fact that many terrorist groups have ties to Egypt. In fact, the Islamic Jihad was founded in Egypt. What about Pakistan? Why was so little done in Afghanistan? This was supposed to be about terrorism right? It's obviously not. But under Republican rule, this sort of deception appears to be acceptable practice. We can send people off to die under false pretenses and nobody is held accountable for this. And we continue to send people over and nobody really is clear for what. If that had been a Democrat, you can bet there would have been a motion to impeach.
And with that being said, nobody is doing anything about this. Nobody is doing anything to stop this madness. Everybody is just in a waiting mode to see when it will end. What people don't realize is the US is now in the last stages of it's available military personnel. It will start doing a draft next.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/apr2004/draf-
And for what? Why is the US even at war? Nobody knows. And the majority of America doesn't even realize the seriousness of what is happening here. People need to wake up and they need to do so now.
The MPAA really needs some better PR people. I'm on Michael Moore's side, but the MPAA has an easy response to his stand on piracy.
Michael Moore:
"I do well enough already and I made this film because I want the world, to change. The more people who see it the better, so I'm happy this is happening."
The correct response from the MPAA should be something along the lines of:
"While we are happy that Michael Moore's films have brought him financial success, we are disappointed in his apparent lack of empathy for the movie theatre employees who rely on box-office ticket sales for their much more modest incomes."
Again, my views are in line with Michael Moore's regarding fair use, but I'm still capable of recognizing valid arguments against that position.
So where are the primary sources? I read a few of the example deceits and the author is using as evidence what historians call secondary sources. These are documents that have been once (or more) removed from the situation. He references newspaper and editorials, but never himself interviews the subjects. By doing this, the author allows that he has no more solid footing than Moore and in many ways less due to the film used by Moore.
If you're going to refute a person's work, then take the time to go to primary sources; the victims, the subjects, the documents, etc., and present them for review.
Huh?
How about when he played the clip of Condi Rice saying there was a link between Iraq and 9/11 when the full statement was that the link was that, basically, both are bad?
This was a fairly drastic contextual problem...
I think it had more to do with screwing England than helping the U.S.
as for robbIE's fauxking PostBlock censorship devise, well you just can't couNT on that either?
... improvements can and will be made.''
r of ile-E-Voting-Gadfly.html?pagewanted=2
"We have a train wreck that's definitely going to happen,'' Harris said. ``We have conflict of interest, we've taken the checks and balances away, and we know the votes are already being miscounted fairly frequently. This is going to be huge.''
Harris, 52, didn't set out to become a muckraking voting technology expert.
Accustomed to working with manuscripts and authors in suburban Seattle, she preferred doting on her new grandchild to debating politics. She still doesn't vote regularly.
But when Harris was idly surfing the Web during a lunch break two years ago, she became obsessed with an issue essential to democracy, quickly becoming the unlikely center of a movement to ensure integrity in the nation's voting systems.
Critics say Harris, author of ``Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century,'' is a fear-mongering grandstander and a presumptuous conspiracy theorist. The prime target of one investigation -- voting equipment maker Diebold Inc. -- says her antics undermine democracy.
``We must not frighten voters or inadvertently provide any type of disincentive to voting,'' Diebold spokesman David Bear wrote in an e-mail when asked to respond to Harris' claims that the company's software is riggable and insecure. ``While security is an important issue
Others question the motives behind her obsessive investigations of politicians and executives at big voting equipment companies such as Diebold, Sequoia Voting Systems Inc. and Election Systems & Services Inc.
``She bases her whole theory on a continuous string of untruths,'' said Lou Ann Linehan, chief of staff for Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel. In the 1990s, Hagel headed voting equipment company American Information Systems Inc., which later became ES&S. Hagel maintains investments between $1 million and $6 million in McCarthy Group Inc., a private bank with a large stake in ES&S.
Harris, who dubs Hagel ``poster boy for conflict of interest,'' says the Republican did not disclose the extent of his American Information Systems involvement and questions whether a former executive of a company whose machines count votes in precincts nationwide should run for public office. Hagel's staff insist that his former career doesn't affect his political life.
``I don't know if it's sloppy research or she doesn't care,'' Linehan said. ``I don't spend a lot of time worrying about it because it's all so ridiculous.''
Criticism, as well as legal threats from ES&S, Diebold and other companies, has enervated Harris, whose blond hair turned completely gray last year. But legions of fans -- from New Zealand bloggers to respected computer scientists -- encourage her.
Exploiting the power of the Internet, Harris has created a Web site that documents hundreds of local, county and state elections that have been botched or contested because of flaws with voting software.
She details an incestuous web of voting company executives, politicians and election officials -- people who are often related or have worked for each other.
Her style is brash. She drives her Toyota Corolla and rental cars thousands of miles to ambush registrars in counties where election results didn't match exit polls.
Frustrated that few mainstream journalists have publicized her exploits, Harris once left voice mail for Washington Post star Bob Woodward. When he didn't call back, she trashed him in a Web forum called ``Media Whores Online.''
``It took me a while to recognize that despite her over-the-top personal style, she was doing valuable sleuthing,'' said Douglas Jones, associate professor of computer science at the University of Iowa and a member of Iowa's Board of Examiners for e-voting. ``But her style, which tends to be a bit alarmist and tends to appeal to conspiracy theorists, may be necessary to get the attention of the people who need to pay attention.''
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/technology/AP-P
Thats a good point. Also, you have to keep in mind that a lot of people might not even give this film a chance in the theatre if they have to pay for it. However, Moore can help spread his propaganda (which, truth or not, it is - its a blatantly political movie that supports the "anyone but Bush" movement) to a much wider audience, thereby better accomplishing one of his goals in making this movie. Those goals would be as follows:
1) Make money (the movie is already profitable)
and
2) Make people hate the current administration.
Now, whether you like him or not, you have to admit, this is pretty genius. He's already made plenty of bank on this film, and now, he's going to be able to spread it to people who are either too cheap to go see it in the theatre, or perhaps, politically opposed to himself.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
You know a movie has substance when people who haven't seen it are attacking it. The thing that has the Republicans scared is how this movey HAS swayed the American public already. There is report after report of staunch Republicans coming out of the movie saying that they can't support Bush.
Bush had better pardon himself for war crimes before he leaves office -- otherwise he may get a knock on the door. Maybe not now or in the near future, but the people of the world will not forget what his administration has done.
...but Quisling was the leader of the Norwegian "Nasjonal Samling" party, a Norwegian party that agreed with Hitler's ideals. That'd make him right wing. Extreme ring wing.
Actually, don't correct me. I know I'm correct already.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
So I downloaded F9/11. Big deal. I was also at the front of the line to buy tickets to go see it on Friday. Further, when (if Disney allows) it comes out on DVD, I will buy a copy. I will buy two, actually, and send the second one to my right-wing pro-Bush in-laws just to piss them off.
Just because I downloaded the movie (for fear that it wouldn't be shown in my small town (which it very nearly wasn't)), doesn't mean I deprived anyone of anything.
How appropriate. You fight like a cow.
He has betrayed his fellow countrymen by making documentaries with questionable facts. But Bush is a brave man for making up lies to help him get support for war.
Bush polarises people. Some people really think that he is great, sorting out the economy and liberating countries. Many think that he is spending too much money giving his friends tax cuts and totally failing to understand that how national credibility depends on doing the right things for the right reasons. Being against Bush doesn't mean you are a democrat. You could be Osama bin Laden, but at the same time you could be Warren Buffett or George Soros.
If you want to attack his argument, that's it. Throwing around incorrect uses of informal fallacies isn't going to help you much.
It seems to be helping Rush. In fact it's integral to his whole schtick. If you want for a prime example of deeply twisted delusional disorder logic go read a couple certifiable nUt cAsE Rush Limbaugh transcripts.
Now what were you saying about Michael Moore again?
... you almost had a good post until I read your sig (and the linked site). Perhaps you just haven't had a change to meet an AIDS patient. Just like the holocaust, it's large and it's very real. Or maybe you'd like to tell the patient that you don't belive in the virus they have.
-Valiss
Like hell he doesn't.. Between making cash to spend on his next pile of lies, and to oust Bush at any cost ( even at the cost of the truth ) he has few other goals, currently.
As far as him 'allowing' downloads, its not his movie, its the people that funded it, and its their choice.
Much as a writer doesn't truly 'own' the book they write, the publisher does.
( if he self-published and funded ill retract that last comment, but not the first statement or any other derogatory statements I have/will make about the fool )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I just toured around a third world country for my vacation, spreading my american earned wealth in a place where the currency is historically unstable and the people learn not to depend on it.
Venturing out into the non-tourist areas makes one realize that there are two economies: the one for western products and the one for local products. As long as the people don't want to buy a pair of nikes or a motorcycle, they can live pretty well on "pennies a day". I think it is mostly a western first world cultural phenomenom to assume that it takes currency for a cummunity of people to live satisfactory lives...
You sure your alt isn't DickCheney?
As a promotion, it would make sense to offer many films as free 320x240 downloads with mono audio. If it's any good, you'll want to see the film version.
"I live in the UK and there is no legal way for me to have seen this film yet"
What does this mean? Has it not been released over there? You can still BT it.
+++ATH0
"Lion's Gate says it has no plans to oppose the practice."
Because they already know they wont be getting any real profit anyways, the audience they target is already not going to buy it, but find pirated versions anyways.
The whole point of the movie is get a message out, why wouldn't he want it to reach the greatest possible audience?
I for one will download it _and_ see it in the theatre. It's a runaway hit here in Canada, by the way.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
His movie broke plenty of records, so I'm sure the box-office employees will be doing fine, they're paid hourly anyway, and unless people stop making movies, they'll have jobs.
What?
Of course, that's impossible. He must have misspoke himself. Though no one challenged him on it, AFAIK.
Also, did anyone catch the bizarre joke he told in his previous sentence? Here: It's remarkably subtle. Sure, I've taken it slightly out of context (read the whole thing for yourself), but why wouldn't anyone believe he'd be in a troubled mental state after learning about those horrible, unprecedented attacks?
If he doesn't care if folks can DL it for free why the hell release it into the theaters for $7-8 bucks a pop?? Greed. Kinda ironic since he makes light of the fact the Bush's are rich and such in the movie. Remember propaganda from the left or right should be FREE.
I am sure he mentioned Clinton's "Peace Dividend" leading to the towers falling....
How about the shill on the 9/11 committee who contributed the intelligence failure?
NOT!
More censorship El president'a Taco?
Link to CNN.com story.
No, that's the definition of the adjective form of the word "documentary", not the noun form, which is what we are discussing when we talk about "a documentary".
Don't believe me? Look for yourself.
I knocked down this little bit of selective mis-definition in an earlier thread... the fact that it keeps popping up when it is so obviously wrong indicates that either many people here need to learn how to use a dictionary, or they need to learn how to do more than just parrot Republican talking points.
Read my blog.
Here is a link explaining how Moore's alleged stance on copyright issues is being used to damage the profitability of the film:
Link to CNN.com story.
I don't think he cares about any more money, I heard the film grossed $28million in it's first two days. It was awesome, I definitely recommend going to see it or downloading it.
----
Ground Control to Major Tom...
Interesting how Mel Gibson actually cracked down on peer-to-peer distribution of "The Passion of the Christ" (techincally the equivalent to stealing Bibles) where as Moore supports the free sharing of his movie.
...because Michael Moore himself said it wasn't. It's, according to his own words, an "op-ed piece on the last four years of the Bush administration." It's his political pamphlet.
Hell, one lie I can think off the top of my head immediately is his assertion that Saddam's Iraq never killed or threatened a single American. Things like that made my jaw drop in the theater, but of course, the Moore fans sitting around me were just spellbound and didn't question. I guess people ignore truths when it supports their viewpoint, ignoring the Western hostages during the Kuwait invasion, the decade of firing up at our fighters in the no-fly zone, Saddam's boasting of terrorist sponsorship.
For the record, Bowling For Columbine wasn't a documentary either, and Moore has even stopped pretending it was. He even gave back his Oscar, though none of the liberal media reported it so it seems nobody even knows he did (surprise).
If a conservative filmmaker made the same stretches of truth Moore did, most people here would be all over it, calling it "another case of the conservative scumbag liars" or other such vitriol. But because this place is generally left of center and Moore tells them what they want to hear, suddenly it's a truthful documentary. Nobody seems to care that the 9/11 Commission already released their conclusion about the Saudi flights--that nothing wrong happened. And Richard Clarke, painted as a moral hero in the film? He's the guy who personally authorized the flights to begin with! That fact is not mentioned.
If people want to hear about stretches of truth in Fahrenheit 9/11, check out this Slate article. I think the silliest thing I saw in the film, which actually made me laugh out loud (much to the chagrin of the liberals there) is when Iraq was protrayed as this peaceful Eden with kids flying kites and nothing but peace and quiet, then suddenly come rolling the US tanks. Pure propaganda, plain and simple, and for a website full of people who complain about, say, Microsoft propaganda, it's surprising so many people are quite okay with propaganda when it voices a viewpoint they themselves already agree with. Personally, I don't believe in propaganda in any form. But that's just me--a level-headed guy who doesn't drop down and suck the dick of anyone who makes a film that plays yes-man to me, left or right.
Maybe Moore can get Jerry Seinfeld to do the shooting. He did such a great job with Death Blow and Cry Cry Again.
Letterman's Top Ten List: "Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11":
10. That actor who played the President was totally unconvincing
9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election
8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words
7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported
6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger
5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true
4. Not sure - - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe
3. Where the hell was Spider-man?
2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth
1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball
"Taliban," by Ahmed Rashid
I read this book after 9-11, and it talked a lot about the desire of foreign companies, American included, to build oil pipelines to get at new finds near the Caspian Sea, and pipe it to ports in Pakistan & India. As the Taliban expanded control over the region in the 90s, the U.S. originally supported their "stability," and oil companies courted them to ensure construction could proceed. Obviously, when Bin Laden began attacking U.S. installations, the desired stability evaporated. The book ends in late 2000, before 9-11 and the assassination of the Northern Alliance leader Massoud. If anyone wants a good followup, National Geographic had an article in late 2001.
Life is irony, and nothing ever goes as planned.
I don't think we owe the French anything. In WWII we didn't just sit by the shore and fire cannon's we died by the thousands which graves have been desecrated I might add. Sing their anthem? Yeah, right. Whatever good the French have done for us in the past has been erased as far as I'm concerned.
Fahrenheit 9/11 is not a documentary. Documentaries are supposed to be objective and let the audience come to their own conclusions. Moore force feeds us his opinion.
If he doesn't care if folks can DL it for free why the hell release it into the theaters for $7-8 bucks a pop?? Greed.
Congrats! I think you may very well have posted THE most ignorant comment ever on Slashdot.
a) chances are, not all those Democrats voted in the last election...
b) some of those attending (like myself) are undoubtedly able to vote for the first time ever.
c) some of those attending (like my mother) are "borderline" Republicans.
Now then, given the fact that Bush won by an extremely small fraction of votes, the movie only has to enrage around 1000 non-voters or borderlines to get to the polls. (The actual number is probably less, I don't claim to be entirely accurate.)
Of course, that assumes that Bush actually WON the election. /tinfoilhat
The website is:
..... "While I disagree with many of his points and his insulting style, he does raise factual issues."
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723
Paragraph #1. Personal reminiscing. No facts to contradict f9/11.
#2. Still no facts.
#3. Still no facts.
#4. Still no facts. Speaks of a previous debate.
#5. Still no facts.
#6. Stating a premise of the movie is NOT stating a fact against that movie.
#7. See #6
#8. See #7
#9. See #8
#10. I'm not sure what he's saying here.
#11. His opinion of what the movie seems to be saying.
#12. Sets up false dichotomies ("Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not.") that do not seem to be stated in the film.
#13. Complains about Moore ("In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11.").
#14. This one is cute. "A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims."
Yet he has not managed to identify the "big lie" yet.
#15. Another cute one. "The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive." But it is factual and caught on tape.
#16. Another cute one. "In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed." But it seems to be actual footage of actual Iraqis before the war.
#17. "Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American." I'm going to need to verify that Moore said that. This may be one actual discrepency.
#18. "Thus, in spite of the film's loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem."
Well I believe that he was not a problem. He was contained and his country was collapsing around him. He couldn't even travel without body doubles.
#19. "From being accused of overlooking too many warnings--not exactly an original point--the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many."
And that is a factual error how?
#20. "Circling back to where we began, why did Moore's evil Saudis not join "the Coalition of the Willing"?"
Not even complete speculation. This does not count as a factual counter.
#21. No facts. He doesn't like the way Moore picks on Bush.
#22. No facts. He doesn't like the way Moore plays to racial inequality.
#23. No facts. "Moore has announced that he won't even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning." So? Attack the movie. If you can.
#24. "However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point."
He ADMITS that he doesn't have any facts to counter the movie with. Did you even READ this far into it? Fact-checking would be the FIRST thing to do to show how "flat-out phony" the movie was.
#25. Still, no facts to counter the movie.
#26. See #25.
#27. See #26.
#28. See #27.
#29. No facts. Just attacks on Moore.
Yet you claim
Perhaps someone could point them out? I've already gone through each paragraph, by the numbers. It can't be that difficult, can it?
...in approving downloads? Is it to spread his message? Very possibly. But can it be much deeper? I recall reading he will possibly be banned from selling his DVDs and Videos due to some federal laws prohibiting the candidates' names from being advertised in commmercial products, or something of that nature; I suppose similar to network channels not broadcasting Arnold's films half-a-year ago. So, that could very well be his real reason, as I strongly doubt he wants to forego potential profits, despite his political position.
A blog like any other.
It is not a documentry. It is political propaganda for the left. Nothing more, nothing less.
I don't think he owns the rights to do that...
He shot the film but Disney owns the rights unless he bought them. And you know the right wing is going to vigorously oppose this film being widely distributed until after November. So look for major busts of people passing it around.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
"Moore doesn't want a president that's in a school browsing a book when USA is attacked by Al-Qaida. That's what this is all about."
Bush had no idea the country was being attacked after the first plane hit the WTC. It wasn't until the second building that was hit that he responded to his advisors.
Now, had he jumped up and responded to the first plane crash...then I might be suspicious. I mean, plan crashes happen all the time. Why would he jump up and leave class after the first plane hit the building?
Life is not for the lazy.
Um, they are both documentaries, and Moore has stated this.
So what if it is or isn't?
The only reason this "difference" is being flogged by the radicals is that it creates a patina, an aura, of "lying" by Moore. It's misdirection, in the same manner that Moore illustrated in the movie itself. Don't look at the elephant on the bed! Look at the dictionary! It's not an elephant by definition! It's a pachyderm!
Level-headedness shouldn't make you stupid. The facts in the movie are checked out. They are solid. What he documents happening, happened.
There is a difference between what O'Really and the radical right wing talkers do and what Moore does. Both are propagandists. The Right pretends to be fair, Moore does not. The Right has constant access to the airwaves, Moore does not. Bush and company lies, constantly, incontravertibly. Moore does not.
Moore is one man, and the radicals are legion. They are not equivalent.
Riiiight, exactly, because we all know there we no Britons, Canadians, or anyone else there... I keep forgetting it was the US who saved the day.
One thing though, next time, please try showing up on time when there's a world war.
To reiterate what I've found myself saying a lot of recently, it doesn't need to be impartial to be a documentary. A documentary is any non-fiction work that documents some person or event. Moore admits that his film presents fact with an agenda, but he would vehemently deny your claim that he lies. And your examples don't show otherwise; he may portray Iraq as relatively peaceful prior to the invasion by showing supporting footage, but that footage wasn't staged. It really happened.
"Why does everyone think it was ONLY Bush that thought he had them?"
Who is saying that?
I'm sure that they also both believed in Santa Claus and The Tooth Fairy at one time in their lives.
But Clinton did not invade. Bush did.
They rar'd iso's of VCDs? 1 gig? WTF?
Hahahahahahahahha
Wow, it almost sounded like you knew what you were talking about until you started acting confused about what's been standard for, ooh, at least a decade. Just because you've worked out how to use P2P doesn't mean you know what you're talking about.
Oh well, thanks for making me laugh anyway. Release as DivX and transcode to VCD? Classic.
I recommend the ABC BitTorrent client for Windows, too.
Two other movies and 35 recently published books support everything Michael Moore says in Fahrenheit 9/11 about U.S. government corruption, and much, much more:
Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. Problems with Slashdotted? Try http://www.hevanet.com/peace/usgovcorruption.htm
There were several books published before and during the Clinton administration about former U.S. President Bill Clinton. However, the situation with Clinton and previous presidents was not even remotely comparable. There are many more books discussing the Bush administration, and the negative issues are far, far more serious.
Both of the other movies, Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War and Unprecedented - 2000 Presidential Election are available by BitTorrent, also.
There are links to reviews of all the movies and books in the article linked above, but no BitTorrent links yet.
What are you talking about? It is showing in cinemas all over the UK today. A list of London cinemas where it is showing is here. I don't know about the rest of the country since popcorn.co.uk got shut down.
v. good post
As far as im aware it took a devastating attack at Pearl harbor for America to even realise there was a world war raging.
The shrill perennial cry from young Amercians who were born many years after WW2 was that they were fighting for freedom and the world owes them a debt of gratitude until doomsday.
where were the champion liberators of Europe in 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland and developed a war machine built on Jewish slavery?
The extreme left crowd is...
/. board minders being extreme left? No, just the stupid left. There is a distinction there, just as there are a bunch of stupid extremes to the right
Quite willing to tell you that they should be allowed to spend your money where they think its needed regardless of your belief.
Quite willing to tell you that you have no right to tell anyone you disagree with their morals.
Quite willing to tell you that God has no business being interjected into society and any attempt is a violation of Church and State separation (which does not exist in the Constitution btw)
Quite willing to spew hatred, lies, and name calling to somehow invalidate a persons opinion or actions. This is especially true when they cannot refute the person or their ideas on factual grounds.
Quite willing to use minority groups against each other and the other side to further promote their goals while never solving the problems faced by the same groups (else the groups would not need them! - iow race baiters)
Quite willing to use class warfare, claiming the rich got their without working, but actually only taxing those who do earn their wealth (as most these class warfare people are inherited money or hollywood money). Their other favorite claim is that corporations don't pay enough taxes when in reality no corporation pays any tax - its just embedded onto the consumer)
On the other side of the coin, the extreme right is
Quite willing to inflict their sense of religious values on your and force you to adhere to them
Quite will to push their values in your face in printed and physical form
Quite willing to blame you for your situation regardless of any true circumstances beyond your control (however they are right if you don't try and remedy it yourself)
Quite willing to give money to businesses to generate jobs regardless of true economic benefit.
Quite willing to buy votes with bogus spending programs just as the left does.
Quite willing to spend your money where they see fit even if you totally disagree with it.
Quite willing to block your access to material of questionable content, but they set the standards.
As far as the
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
"56 Deceits," found nailed to Moore's door. Inspired, Moore's next documentary-ish movie will be Fahrenheit 95, an incinderary historical deconstruction of Lutherianism...
The CAM-POT release was reencoded last week (the day after) as a single disk divx. Quality isnt great but its small and its not like you will miss much of the movie. It was rereleased as CAM-POT.recode.DivX.OTR.avi. Dont have the hash handy but those who want it already know where to get it.
There will be genuine dvd rips in a few weeks as the cannes copies leak over to the other networks and get reencoded. I dont feel there is much urgency involved in getting this out in uber high quality.
hypocrisy: insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have.
If I'm opposed to you pointing a gun at your foot and pulling the trigger would it be hypocritical of me to suggest that you go to the hospital after having done so--or (for a more accurate analogue) that you not point your gun at your other foot until we've at least put a bandage on the hole in your foot?
As the situation changes, the solution changes. This is not hypocrisy.
Now is Michael Moore a hypocrite? Google returns 17,000 results that seem to think so (that's even more than George Bush!). Of course, I have yet to see a good example of his hypocrisy (and yes, I'm too cheap to buy the book).
Hypocrisy is where you profess beliefs, claiming to enforce them on everyone (including yourself), that contradict your own actions. It's a one rule for all--but don't look at the man behind the curtain--sort of thing.
During my searches I uncovered a site that questions the significance of hypocrisy and explains hypocrisy far better than I can. But, whatever, feel free to form your own opinion.
Two other movies and 35 recently published books support everything Michael Moore says in Fahrenheit 9/11 about U.S. government corruption, and much, much more:
Supporting Material: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. Slashdotted? Try http://www.hevanet.com/peace/usgovcorruption.htm
There were several books published before and during the Clinton administration about former U.S. President Bill Clinton. However, the situation with Clinton and previous presidents was not even remotely comparable. There are many more books discussing the Bush administration, and the negative issues are far, far more serious.
There are links to reviews of all the movies and books in the article linked above, but no BitTorrent links yet. For those, try again later.
I despise the French but know enough about their ways to have a similarly detached attitude to them. One thing everyone should understand- the recent wave of Franco-phobia in the U.S. has been so visible precisely because the average American- in their good-hearted ignorance- was genuinely shocked and hurt by the way the French turned against us. In their minds Franco-American relations are defined by LaFayette, the Statue of Liberty, and the Normandy landings, not DeGaulle, de Villepin, and amoral, a-ideological back-stabbing.
But since at least DeGaulle France has consistently betrayed the Western Alliance, caring more about "national honor" and grandeur than ideals or decency. I've heard French moans lately about why the President can't be more like FDR, and laugh when I remember that in the latter's time DeGaulle was a constant prick and thorn in the side of Allies, always caring more about France not looking little than winning the war.
French foreign policy has followed this course for the last 50 years, sadly. Automatic opposition to the United States to make itself feel important and relevant; convenient alliances with anti-American states (no matter how repugnant) to have more influence. Do people forget who built Saddam's nuclear reactor at Osirak? Or who gave arms to their Rwandan Hutu clients during their campaign of genocide?
But what makes this truly sad and despicable is that it is done for no larger purpose than self-aggrandizement. German opposition to the Iraq war was at least honorable because it was based on ideals; Joschka Fischer turned to Jurgen Habermas and his neo-Kantian ideal of foreign relations. France, on the other hand, had Napeoloen-worshipping Dominique de Villepen, and it wouldn't have mattered if the government was Socialist, National Front, or Communist- the outcome and selfish, short-sighted reasons for it would have been the same.
France- you were humiliated in WWII and have been trying to regain your national honor ever since. Hint- the way to do it is not through grand-standing, self-involved, perverse behavior on the international stage. Stop being the bitch-nation of Europe.
1. Standard right wing/conservative approach to dealing with issues: DON'T
Attack the messenger, ignore the message.
The vast majority of negative reviews of F911 tend to center around character assassination of Moore himself, rather than the issues raised in his movies:
2. Make outrageous claims with no intent to back them up:
3. "Post-hypnotic suggestions" - Tell people what they will think.
It's bad enough that any critic has the job of influencing people based on their opinion, but when they start telling you how you will react to the movie, they've gone too far:
4. Push the boundaries of hypocrisy
This great trick, perfected by Fox News with the advent of the "No Spin Zone" has been elevated to an art form by the Bush administration. Right wing pundits employ this technique more often than they whip out their American Express gold card:
Let's put thoughts in Michael Moore's head, then let's lambast him for putting thoughts in other peoples' heads. Then let's top it all off with a cherry:
One thing though, next time, please try showing up on time when there's a world war.
It's all those cavalry movies they watch...
(obIzzard)
You really should use the preview button in the future ITR81. It will save you from saying things that are idiotic like this in the future.
Yeah thats true. Although the only reason the US finally joined in was because Hitler was eying up the US after the UK. You think all those American people died for France? course they didn't, because a move overseas was inevitable if Hitler took Europe.
Funny that.
OK - what does this have to do with anything? I'll tell you... it's an interesting story. A friend of mine knows Michael Moore personally, so I have always kind of been very supportive of his efforts with Bowling, and Roger and Me, etc... I was excited when the trailer came out, watched it, etc...
Then Ken Brown with the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute came out with the "samizdat" stuff about Linux being stolen from Minix or some nonsense, and I was reading all about that, and I was, of course, stunned by the "FUD", and was reading every article that came out about it.
So there I was, reading an article rebutting Ken Brown and his anti-Linux propoganda, written by a very knowlegable individual, and it was a good article (I don't remember which article it is now or I'd link to it) - it went through the issues point by point, and it was, I thought, a well-written article that "stuck up" for Linux, and open source. But here's the thing, the point, the phrase that changed my life as I know it... the author said that what Ken Brown had done would make individuals like Micheal Moore "blush", or something along those lines. Some other individuals were mentioned, I believe Limbaugh was another one. In other words, Ken Brown has "outdone" Moore, and Moore could "learn" from Brown. It didn't even click, or sink in, for a second or two.
But then I did some searching on the net, and you know what, my friend actually threatened to never speak with me again if I didn't shut up about it. But despite all that, my opinion is that Moore is just a little "screwy". My opinion, mind you. Not a fact, not other people's opinion.
Freedom of speech - OK, freedom of speech is a good thing - let's "bring" freedom of speech "to the world". But bringing "democracy" to the world, that's got to be a big sin, right? How could those war-mongers even suggest that other countries want democracy, right? But showing the film in Syria, in Lebanon, right on, babe. Those countries "need" freedom of speech. They "need" our American values and Mr. Moore is going to bring it to them! Rock on.
OK - it's all fun and powerful UNTIL IT HAPPENS TO YOU. Like it did with Linux and Ken Brown, or SCO. When SCO happens to YOU, when AdTI happens to YOU, when Michael Moore happens to YOU - you will feel differently about it. Of course, it is freedom of speech, after all, which is EXACTLY what SCO is... freedom of speech, and why Germany could tell them to put a sock in it and the US can't - freedom of speech. And freedom of speech means that you may hear things that you don't like - but that's OK - my freedom of speech says that Moore has a deep-seated hatred towards America, and a lack of respect for Americans as human beings. Again, my opinion, my freedom of speech. Not facts, etc.. There is a difference between "touching up" a picture in Photoshop to make it look better and fake celebrity porn. There is a line, where editing, chopping and piecing things together becomes something else (like fake celebrity porn). But hey... freedom of speech, right? No problem with that.
I really hate to be unpopular, especially since my friend knows Moore personally, but I have some questions that I wouldn't mind asking the gentleman. Granted, much of what is presented in Farenheit IS factually acurrate, not to mention that there ARE many issues with the Bush administration. It's just that there is a deeper sense of integrity and affect that I am looking for, that I am not finding. It's not balanced, and it's anti-American. Hatred is a bad thing, especially if you hate your own country. That's different from being angry at the current administration's policies and actions. Two different things. If you hate America, and you are an American, they you hate yourself. None of us really had any choice in where we were born, so I think we need to look at citizenship and patriotism in a completely different way than we are tending to.
I guess that the thing that bugs me, when it boils down to it, and take this how you will, is that Moore i
Now then, given the fact that Bush won by an extremely small fraction of votes
Yup. it was 5 to 4.
In fact, Al Gore won 500,000 more popular votes, and half a percentage point.
Despite howls of scorn from the Right to the tune of "get over it," there is ample evidence that Gore won the popular vote in Florida, too. Of course, the idiotic Gore campaign was so lame it couldn't even win Tennessee. However, the Bush administration should wear a scarlett A for its voting adultery in Florida in 2000.
"Saddam's Iraq never killed or threatened a single American"
That is not what he said...Which makes you a liar.. actually it just makes you someone who knows how to cut and paste from newsmax.
Anyway he said the Iraq Nation had never attacked the us, threatened to attack the us or killed a american civilian.
It is a stretch to make a point.. it should also be noted that Saddam did not kill any of the hostages in GW 1 and that we gave him an initial go ahead to attack Kuwait. Also Kuwait was drilling into Iraq land for oil which is one of the things that lead up to the attack.
Ironically somthing the RW does not like to bring up about the hostages was that the guy that orchestrated their freedom is the one tha blue the whistle on the Uraniam/Niger lie. His wife was then outed (CIA Spy) in the typical if you can't attack the msg attack the msger tactic or the right.
But please don't let these things get in the way of your 'patriotism' for the President.
I honestly think some people -- maybe not the majority but a significant minority -- download movies, songs, TV shows, software, etc because they are addicted.
I'm willing to bet that everyone here knows at least one guy (or girl) who has hundreds of thousands of MP3s, some of which they've only listened to once. Or maybe someone who has dozens of complete TV series. You walk into these people's rooms and there are tons of 100 disc CD spindles sitting on shelves, completely burned and just collecting dust.
I have to believe in these cases that it's a form of internet cleptomania. Not the most damaging of disorders, but still not fucking right.
Isn't it funny when mentioning bittorrent all the pirates come out of the woodwork recommending the best "clientz".
Isn't it also funny that mentioning 9-11 causes all the liberals to come out of the woodwork?
Coincidence? perhaps.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
"I don't think there's really a single actor or director in the world who does not believe that if you don't combat piracy, it will devour you in the future.
I'm still trying to figure out what the above post is supposed to be saying.
I've seen F9/11, and while I think it's a bit too heavy-handed in the propaganda department, I applaud Moore's attitude on P2P distribution.
Interestingly, we bought it at one of the dozens of pirate DVD stalls downtown (yes, I live in that sort of a country, it's not coming to theatres here anytime soon, and I took Michael Moore's statement as permission to go ahead and do that - at US$2, nobody's making much money), and while all the quality issues are exactly as described in the message board (cut off subtitles, missing sound channels, etc.) the parts that were described as missing were present in this DVD.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Interview with UNOCAL.
One unsubstantiated Le Monde article was all the "evidence" ever provided.
However, having gone to the trouble to shoot and edit the movie with high enough quality for movie projection, I'd want the highest possible quality to be downloadable.
Clearly you have not seen Moore's documentaries before. He's got maybe 35mm or worse yet maybe camcorder quality in many sections. Going for top image quality has never been Moore's foremost considerations in making his films.
So unless the back of people's heads, or audience reaction noise (which I assume is going to be fairly disruptive for most cam corder jobs) is what you want to get rid of, I'd say you needn't bother about the image quality.
"I'm not saying Moore's film isn't misleading."
In a way, Fahrenheit 9/11 is misleading. Two other movies and 35 recently published books explain that the problems are far, far worse than the movie says. This article provides links to reviews of each of them: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. Slashdotted? Try http://www.hevanet.com/peace/usgovcorruption.htm
Anyway, I applaud Michael Moore for taking this stance. Having seen the last film, and the sites citing errors, ommisions and downright duplicity in the films I was going to not bother watching this one. Since it is now legal to watch over BT I'll definitely pull a copy and give it a watch on the hope he has something interesting to say without his grandstanding and stunts.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
That was the French monarchy. The complaints are usually aimed at the cowardice and weakness of the French republic which didn't emerge for at least a decade after that (1789?). .. and with which the US was almost immediately in conflict.
That there is an "interest" (mild word) in oil driving not just the current Iraq adventure but middle-east policy at large is undeniable.
;)) fighting the Soviets, who then went on to form the Taliban government; Russia was one of the major oil trading partners with Iraq while that country was under sanctions ... swing your partner, do-si-do.
However, the idea that France (or, say, Russia) is above "feet wet in some shitty Arab country that means nothing to most people, except of course GW Bush and his oil frenzied cronies" does not match the facts. Russia (in the form of the USSR) certain got its feet wet (and often blown off) in Afghanistan, where the U.S. strangely enough trained or flowed money to a lot of people (the Mujihideen, spelling loose
A few tidbits about France's involvement in the export of Iraqi oil can be found here (globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm)
(And more on French involvement in Iraqi trade.)
The high-level U.S. motives in Iraq I consider partly cynical, though they're mixed with some good ones. Are they *mostly* cynical, and the good ones are only in there as window dressing, or is it a matter of inextricably linked attributes? That's not a rhetorical question.
[Note: I think the U.S. should stay out of this sort of adventure unless truly necessary, but even though it sounds definitive, "truly necessary" is a tough standard to agree on. A lot of people consider WWII to have been obvious (U.S. involvement, that is), but it sure wasn't at the time. The UN had found it necessary to place a series of arms-inspection teams (by most accounts ineffective due to manpower constraints as well as their acceptance of rather bizarre rules) into Iraq, and the uncooperation those teams faced is one thing that goaded the U.S., with greater support than it now enjoys for it, into war; this has always struck me as one of the most bizarre aspects of the whole thing.]
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
We didn't send troops but we did send material. Guns, ammunition, food stuffs, tanks. And if I remember my history correctly the main reason for german aggression in WWII was the fact that the other European powers, namely France and England, decided to punish Germany to where the economy was in shambles and its people were broken.
So the big reason for WWII was France and England wanting vengeance and then paying the price when Germany decided they had had enough; the only reason Great Britain, France, and Russia did as well as they did was due to the American production capabilities(well Russia also had the whole attrition thing going on. You can fight an effective battle if you can lose 3 guys for every enemy combatant). And yes the Pacific was mostly an American affair, there were French and British troops but the island hopping and defense of the bases fell mostly to the American soldiers.
Or maybe the UK. Sheesh buy a map will ya!
While the U.S. has oftentimes been at odds with French policy, we must remember that the U.S. exists mostly due to the efforts of France.
The founding fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor even when the struggle was in deadly earnest and the outcome was in doubt. They did not wait for the French to storm the beaches.
This is not a slam at France (which was a monarchy at the time, and is now on their fifth republic while we are still on our first). It's just pointing out that there is a difference between accepting help for a difficult struggle and letting someone else do most of the fighting.
F911 - deceitful truth
END EXAMPLE showing Mike Moore being truthful albeit in a deceitful manner
Babylon 5 - deceitful truth ... remember that Dan Randall (the b5 ISN
news reporter) was very truthful... he just strung the facts together in an
unethically truthful way just like Mike Moore
If you are still a wee-bit confused about how Mike Moore editing works then you can check out the Babylon 5 episode "Illusion of Truth" which taught me that "truth" might not always be ethical truth and that "truth" might actually be a deceitful truth
Orwell
Many mention/imply that the USA is headed in the direction of Orwell's "1984" (perhaps F911 is an example of 1984 techniques in action). However, many are not aware of Orwell's other writings. For example, Notes on Nationalism:
I believe Juanita
In the movie piracy scene, generally films are released as either VCD or SVCD format. These are in BIN/CUE format, ready for burning. The BIN/CUE's are then RAR'd to take advantage of RAR's splitting capabilities and integrity checks. Then the RAR's are distributed.
In other words, this is normal. What's annoying is when somebody hosts a torrent that is the RAR files and not the uncompressed BIN/CUE's. The pirating group never goes so far as to release the thing onto torrents or such. They're sending files between ftp sites, usually on hacked systems or other systems with big fat pipes and lots of storage. They use tools that let them FTP between sites (similar to FSP), and sometimes from multiple sites (this is where having many RAR files comes in handy) to saturate bandwidth on the receiving sides.
Sometimes this is even automated. Those tools are pretty nifty, actually. You feed it a list of sites and a list of files. It FTPs the whole thing to the first site, then uses FSP to copy it to the second site (much faster than directly FTP'ing it there), then uses FSP to send it to the third site from both of the first two sites simultaneously, and so on. By the time it's done, 20-30 sites can have the thing, and it didn't take any longer than it would have took to send to 3 or 4 of them directly, thanks to the FSP using direct connections between sites and the RAR's being split so that it can send from multiple sites at once. More complicated tools can improve on this by transferring to many sites at once from many other sites and maximizing bandwidth on all of them.
In any case, these sites then get distributed to others via IRC, and people download the thing from these sites, and put it onto their 0-day hookups. This goes on for a bit, and then it eventually filters down to people who might actually watch the movie. Up until now, it's just people trading files because they like trading files fast. They might never actually use those files. Anyway, once it makes it onto sites where people will actually download the thing and thus watch it, it often goes from there onto the P2P networks. Some guy makes a Torrent out of it, somebody sticks it onto Usenet, etc, etc. Often it'll hit newsgroups before it gets made into a torrent somewhere. But by the time it's a torrent, you're at least 4-5 generations away from the original pirated site transfers.
This is so commonplace that tools exist to deal with the multiple layers of formatting. I suggest getting a copy of VCDGear (search google). It can convert RAR'd BIN/CUE's directly into MPG files for viewing. One step, instead of two or three.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
What's the greenhouse effect link? Human activities causing global warming? If so, why are the polar icecaps on Mars melting too?
Which rabbit will the W pull out of his hat to prepare an unlikely victory for November? Take the poll!
More likely it is mental illness. I've seen these symptoms before on mentally ill people who stop taking their medication.
The root cause of the problem is the feeling of nationalism and identity that causes people to apply the deeds of one generation to the next on the basis of nation of origin. I feel that it's unrealistic enough to blame someone for what their blood relative may have done... Let alone some soldier or sports fan or politician or what have you who they have never even met, whether for living hundreds of miles or hundreds of years distant. If you want to blame an administration, that's another thing; but it's best by far to blame the individual.
"Controversial film-maker Michael Moore has welcomed the appearance on the internet of pirated copies of his anti-Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 and claimed he is happy for anybody to download it free of charge."
It isn't piracy if Moore okays it. Stupid media.
"Derp de derp."
All excellent points, and there a couple more that could have been made:
WWI did not threaten the United States, and there was no overriding national interest in going over there. It was, bluntly put, military charity. Complaining we didn't enter early enough is a bit like complaining a gift isn't expensive enough.
In WWII we could have concentrated on defeating Japan before we ever sent a single person over to Europe. Since we are told repeatedly that the U.S. contribution was trivial and it was actually the Russians who defeated Germany, that shouldn't have caused any problems.
Many slashdotter consider the rich to be evil but consider Moore and Kerry to be their heros.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
i'm interested what country you're in that it's available in. normally here in Saint Petersburg, Russia, i can get the DVD from any street corner CD shop the same day as the movie release in the states.
however, yesterday i went all over town looking for this movie, and it wasn't available anywhere.
oh, and we pay about $3 per dvd instead of $2 (but we have PC games at $2 a pop, sometimes coming with the crack and/or serial number generator...)
anyone in Saint Pete know where i can pick up a copy??
Um, they are both documentaries, and Moore has stated this.
Um, I just told you Moore has stated he is making no claims that Fahrenheight 9/11 is rooted in impartial fact but is an op-ed piece. Hell, right now the Daily Show is running a rerun with Moore on it, and he says the same damn thing.
If you still think Bowling For Columbine is a documentary even after it's been proven he completely distorted facts, well, then clearly you're more concerned with believing what Moore tells you than what the facts are.
There is a difference between what O'Really and the radical right wing talkers do and what Moore does.
What does O'Reilly have to do with this? He makes it clear his show is an editorial commentary show. Not a documentary.
Both are propagandists. The Right pretends to be fair, Moore does not.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE, except that you agree with Moore and don't agree with the right. So suddenly, they're "pretending to be fair" and Moore isn't. Is that why Moore came out after Cannes and said his film was supported by facts and would go after anyone claiming otherwise with a suit of libel?
That's like MoveOn.org pretending to be fair. Surprise, surprise, people who believe in their opinions think they're being fair. You have chosen to adhere yourself to the left, and so you think they're fair.
The Right has constant access to the airwaves, Moore does not.
Give me a break. The journalism industry is dominated by liberals, and a recent poll even proved this. If a conservative filmmaker made a "documentary" that stretched the truth like Moore did, papers like the L.A. Times would be all over it. Hell, did you even know Moore gave back his documentary Oscar? Of course you didn't, because the liberal media didn't report on it. If a conservative filmmaker had done that, it would, again, be on the front pages as "SO-AND-SO GIVES BACK OSCAR."
Bush and company lies, constantly, incontravertibly. Moore does not.
Ah, and so your biased agenda emerges. You don't want to see truth, you just want to believe everything Moore says because, again, he tells you what you want to hear. I already gave you lies that Moore has told, including a link to an even bigger list on Bowling For Columbine as well as a Slate article that listed Fahrenheit 9/11's lies (Iraq never threatened a single American?).
After the 9/11 Commission determined that there was nothing wrong with the Saudi flights, suddenly Moore changed his tune, and the film was an "op-ed piece."
Moore is one man, and the radicals are legion. They are not equivalent.
You are biased. Believe what you want about Moore, even in the face of truth. I've offered you facts. All you've offered with your post can be summed up as, "Nuh-uh, the Right lies and Moore doesn't. So there!" You're sure convinced me.
It amazes me how capitalism is such a great thing for cons, but only when it doesn't go against their dogma. Then it's a BAD thing.
"You're getting brutal, Sark. Brutal and needlessly sadistic."
"Thank you, Master Control"
-Sark and the MCP
It's hard enough to get work without crazies like you giving us a bad reputation. Does your doctor know that you stopped taking your meds?
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President."
- President Theodore Roosevelt
"The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- President Theodore Roosevelt
And while we're at it, let's ask President Jefferson too...
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
- President Thomas Jefferson
You've obviously never seen the film. A significant portion of it - easily 50% to 60%, if not more, is shot on video. Most of this is archival footage, news reports, and the like. Plenty of it is still plagued by interlacing artifacts and compression blockiness. I was pretty surprised that the film in the theater didn't look all that much better than the cam copy.
There's very little film in this film.
So you expect, as a non-paying customer, Michael Moore to go out and waste his own money and/or time to bring you a top-quality movie rip of his film, do you?
It's the only way I'll ever see one of his films. Mikey Moore is to the world of politics what crapflooding trolls are to Slashdot discussions. What's curious is that a lot of people seem to want to pay Moore for his "services" and that he's given so much credit by the so-called "left".
So Mikey Moore won't send the IP "gestapo" around to me if I do copy his film? So what? If you copy this post all over Slashdot and Usenet and IRC and post it to your Blog, I won't sue you in court myself.... does that make my message any more worthwhile?
As to the "open source way"... no. You've got it wrong. If Mikey Moore's movie were open source he would be releasing a decent copy of the film in some machine-readable format. Just like open source developers give users the source code to the software. What you describe is not "open source", it's "freeware".
I do not have a signature
"we must remember that the U.S. exists mostly due to the efforts of France"
You're joking, right? Take a step back and read that statement.
The US exists because of the people in the country doing what they believe. Without the French, yes, we'd probably have lost our war for independence. But without the vision, there would not have been a revolution.
Further, most people think that debt is fully repaid due to our efforts during both WWI and WWII. Two-fold. Americans were slaughtered wholesale in both wars, esp. in the first due to our troops being under their generals. I realize both are different times and contexts, but your insistence that *we* must remember seems strangely centric and awkward; *they too* must remember.
It is Socialism as in National Socialist Party
Sure they had a "beef" with The Communist Party
but this was a factional dispute on the left not a Right/Left clash.
Can' you people discuss anything without setting up strawman arguments?
good post
How does it taste, sucking Moore's butt?
If this turkey is going to be 'freely downloadable' perhaps an annotated version should be produced and thrown into the mix for people.
There are so many distortions in Moore's work that it's really a joke when people take it seriously. An annotated version with corrections and comments should be released pronto!
Any number of excellent spoofs should be out and about before long.
resigned
Stop encouraging this troll by responding to his posts. If this is real mental illness and not a clever troll you are not helping him by replying.
The full text of this article from The Economist follows. The original content is subscriber-only; it is reproduced here in the hope and expectation that you will find it useful.
----
Lexington
Moore's law
Jul 1st 2004
From The Economist print edition
The success of his new film is bad news for George Bush. But is it good news for the Democrats?
[Image]
DURING the first three years of the Bush administration the White House rolled over liberal America relentlessly. George Bush began with surprise on his side: the Democratic Party never expected a "compassionate conservative" with a doubtful mandate to morph into a fiery apostle of tax cuts. After September 11th, he benefited from the instinct to rally round the flag. And then he had the Democrats' fear of being seen as wimps when it came to dealing with Saddam Hussein.
But liberal America is no longer willing to be rolled over. Bookshops are piled high with Bush-bashing tomes. Democrats in Congress have more fire in their bellies than they have had in years. John Kerry has already raised more money than any presidential challenger. George Soros is pouring millions into Democratic think-tanks and pressure-groups.
This liberal counter-insurgency has its own pudgy Che Guevara. From the moment Mr Bush "stole" the election from Al Gore, Michael Moore launched fusillades against "the thief in chief". "Stupid White Men", whose publication was delayed by September 11th, went on to sell around 4m copies worldwide. Mr Moore is the perfect antidote to dreary diatribes in the Nation, a man who believes there is no contradiction between left-wing politics and popular entertainment.
"Fahrenheit 9/11" is Mr Moore's harshest blast against Mr Bush yet. The film has already garnered the Palme d'Or at the Cannes film festival (along with a 20-minute standing ovation). It made $24m on its opening weekend in America.
It must be said that, as cinema, the film is not up to the standards of "Roger and Me", Mr Moore's anti-capitalist documentary of 1989, in which he stalks Roger Smith, the General Motors suit who had closed a plant in Mr Moore's hometown of Flint, Michigan. Nonetheless, it gathers some fascinating footage. Mr Moore's vicious wit scores points, as in the scenes of Paul Wolfowitz slobbering saliva over his comb and John Ashcroft warbling a patriotic ditty. His portrayal of the attack on the World Trade Centre--sound only against a blank screen as the planes hit the towers--is a stroke of genius. And Mr Moore can spark genuine outrage even amongst Republicans: what on earth was the White House doing shuttling the bin Laden family out of America straight after the terrorist attacks?
Yet "Fahrenheit 9/11" is unlikely to change anybody's mind. Mr Moore takes too many cheap shots. Wanting to accuse the president of stupidity and idleness, but also of shrewd and unceasing efforts in the cause of evil, he keeps contradicting himself. He lashes Mr Bush for spending too much time on holiday, and then shows him hobnobbing with Tony Blair at Camp David. (Maybe, just maybe, they were discussing affairs of state.) He presents Saddamite Iraq as a land of jolly weddings and kite-flying children. He flirts--or appears to flirt (his method is to insinuate not assert)--with deranged conspiracy theories. Can he really be implying that the White House, and the sinister forces it strives to serve, were glad that September 11th happened?
In so far as the film has a central argument, it is that the war on terror is a confidence trick. Mr Bush is not serious about homeland security, let alone about tackling bin Laden and his Saudi friends. He is simply using terrorism as an excuse for keeping the population in a state of panic while launching a grab for Iraqi oil. Mr Moore ends the film reading a pas
We cheer for American soldiers to die 'cause it makes Bush look bad.
After all defeating BUSH is the Real War on Terror!
does anybody know if anybody's got "The Clinton Chronicles" available for download. You know the documentary about how Bill & Hill murdered Vince Foster, that Bill ran drugs out of Mena airport, that kind of stuff. How 50 of Bill's friends were murdered or committed suicide within a year of him taking office.
Not that I believe any of that, but hey, if someone likes F911, maybe they'd like the Clinton Chronicles, too.
Don't mod me down, i'm not just trolling for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, i'm giving Mr. Moore buzz.
Even in the world of pirates there are standards and practices.. And 'real' releases even vcd's have to be rar'd up to ahere to this procedures..or they would get removed 'nuked' from the top sites and hence never filter down to the lower levels. Also you can then use the sfv file to check for corruption and make sure you are getting the movie you expect too. However, sfv files never make it down to the lower ranks.. So these 'people' left it as intended.. :)
His movie broke plenty of records, so I'm sure the box-office employees will be doing fine, they're paid hourly anyway, and unless people stop making movies, they'll have jobs.
Paid hourly? With what? Fairy dust? No. Their pay comes from ticket and concession sales. Over the long run, fewer tickets sold might mean smaller raises. Or it could mean that the theatre doesn't remain profitable and closes down. Don't tell me you've never seen a theatre that has gone out of business.
Besides, when a theatre has 8 movies and only one of them is going gangbusters, it's not like the sales from that movie are not important. For every "Fahrenheit 9/11", there are plenty of movies like "Gigli", "You Got Served", and "Torque."
If Michael Moore hadn't used his brains to outwit the film industry this film wouldn't have been seen by anyone in the general public to begin with.
Now they are whining about downloads cutting into business when the film made back all of the costs in the first few and Michael Moore himself approves of people downloading it?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
That doesnt mean we should be a colony to France or anything. We've helped the whole of Europe too (WWII) as well.
This is just plain stupid. The United States, like any significantly overpowered force [with any intelligence] resorted to guerilla warfare where the object isn't to win--but to survive by bankrupting the opposition or lowering their willingness to fight. Certainly the French relieved some of the burden, but giving the French credit is ludicrous. The American Navy actually won quite a few victories over the British at sea. We may never would have faced them and defeated them head on, but we wouldn't have needed to. America is free because we realized we weren't on equal footing with the world's super power at the time so we never stood our ground on equal footing. The English could have forgotten about the French and anyone else in Europe and sent their entire fleet here, and we would never have met them head on. We would have picked on the slowest ships, whittling the British down piece-meal. We would have crippled British commercial shipping by the same method. It's the same principle at play when we hid behind rocks and trees and sniped at British officers as they marched in orderly lines down country roads. "Civilized warfare", indeed! Also at the time, the British didn't even realize the economic potential of these beautiful lands, so they probably wouldn't have even tried to fight a long lasting American resistance movement. Americans are free because they won their freedom. Let's not overrate the French influence on our freedom or make them sound like they were just being benevolent.
Speckpot?
Not that they didn't already, but now it will be more obvious.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
-- . . ramblin' . . .
Without American financial support and military supplies, the Britons would have been in awhole lot of trouble - especially if the Germans were able to break through on the Eastern Front to crush the Soviet Union (which would've been quite likely if the U.S. was not involved as much as it was.). Next time a fascist or communist regime starts to dominate Europe (like the European Union :-p), I hope the United States stays completely away from it. Let them suffer for their mistakes completely this time. The economiess behind the Soviet Union or fascist Germany would never be able to support the empire long enough to get here.
Speckpot?
I told a friend that I was curious to watch it for reference in future arguments, but certainly didn't want to support such propoganda. I was hoping I could ge away with not actually watching it. Guess now I'll have to put my money where my mouth is, huh?
Paid in full with WWI.
"I don't agree with the copyright laws and I don't have a problem with people downloading the movie and sharing it with people as long as they're not trying to make a profit off my labour. I would oppose that " he said.
:
The position Mike is apparently holding is the following
1. As long as you don't make a PROFIT off his labour by copying the movie
2. You can copy as much as you want
My guess is , he is referring to -monetary- profit , a.k.a cash. If you give the movie to somebody in exchange of $0 (no money) you're not making any monetary profit, and that's fine with Mike. If you make even $0.5 out of the transaction Mike will oppose you and whoop your ass.
Some could say that, if you wanted to see the movie, you would ordinarily have paid $X > $0 and therefore you stole $X to the copyright owner. This is not true, as "stealing" involves taking something AWAY from somebody possession (for instance if I steal your PC, you no longer have your PC or in other words it's no longer in your possession).
But by making a COPY of a movie, you're not taking away anybody movie so it's not stealing, but it's a violation of copyright law that was created (also) for the purpose of circumventing the limitation (necessary limitations) of the concept of stealing, which requires the physical transfer of a good from somebody possession to somebody else possession.
Now can Michael do that ? It depends if he did sell all the copying rights to the distributor company; if he did, he can't. So, assuming he did, why is the distributor company tolerating Michael statements ?
Probably because he framed the statement well : if you make $$$ out of movie, we'll bust you. If you don't we'll tolerate you _because_ you probably are acting as a _promoter_ of the movie reaching that part of potential audience which is not going to see the movie in theatres nor rent it. And that's not going to cost the company a dime in the balance statement.
Given that the potential (at least in U.S.) audience is more or less 250-300 million viewers the company would like them ALL to see the movie at least once (and of course to pay for it) but nobody can force them to do that. Company makes a bet that the _no money sharing_ will actually make Michael even more popular (increasing the likelyhood that, for the next movie, he'll gross even more $ or the same $ made by F911) or encourage some user to buy the DVD when it reaches the market.
It's a kind of smart advertising that can be enormously effective, as long as you crack down on people making MONEY out of the scheme because obviously the dood who paid for the copy now has less money and is unlikely to spend more money on a original copy.
On the contrary, the Jack Valenti types would like you not to be able to make ANY copy of anything _before_ you pay some money and if possible would like you to pay again if your copy is damaged or pay again if you want to see it again !!! In other words they want total control, but not over content=movie (that's mostly valueless crap anyway and realitively unexpensive to make and copy) but over content distribution channels where ALL the money really is , because a movie is useless if they can't bring it to you and sell it.
Your sharing habit, the internet, the existence of alternative media is their major problem , because it is totally at your advantage and they can't really charge for it or FORCE you to pay, which is bottom line what they want. Conspiracy theory ? Nah basic economics.
Its a good thing that the American resistance was successful! Someone had to fix this shit. Paris not so long ago
But really- all kidding aside: nations change, goverments change, people change, etc. I have no doubt that Jefferson or Madison would crap their pants if they were around today to see the U.S. government. So while it is important to remember history, what we did for the French, what they did for us, yada yada yada, I think it is more important to make decisions based on the current positions of a given country or her government. The French are valid in hating us because of the way we are today, and we are valid in hating them because of the way they are.
See i find this odd.. now i would normally not go and see most of these movies.. but i would wait for them to come on tv.. or download them I know its still technically wrong ;) but they claim they loose 1.6b a year on pirate movies.. I wonder what percentage of that were people that actually decided not to go see it and dl it instead.. I doubt its actually that many.
"...especially if the Germans were able to break through on the Eastern Front to crush the Soviet Union (which would've been quite likely if the U.S. was not involved as much as it was.)"
No, it wouldn't. By the second half of the war, Sovjet produced many times as many tanks/guns/artillery than Germany each week, and on top of that, the German tanks had problems with the Russian terrain, and was NOT buildt for long-lasting winter warefare.
One way Hitler *COULD* have won the war however, would be to have preserved the early alliance with Sovjet, and instead consentrating all his efforts on the West Front.
And as a sidenote on the "America saved the day" view. I noticed that the US stayed out of the war untill it was attacked itself, right? Hardly a good deed then.
What would REALLY be awesome is if the Weinsteins, when they get the inevitable phone calls from the musicians' lawyers complaining about lost revenues to downloaders, simply ask "well, how much revenue do you think you're losing from it? How about if we just write you a check for that amount, and you grant permission?". The total amount involved may actually be fairly small, compared with the movie's revenues. And since 60% of the profits are going to charities specified by Disney (part of the deal Disney insisted on to let the Weinsteins get the film back), the effect on the bottom line would be even smaller.
I'd expect the chance of that happening is pretty close to nil, though.
> He also champions a very Lessig-esque outlook in his reasoning.
Can someone translate this to me? thanks
What's more, the article goes on to say that Lion's Gate Films did not receive home video distribution rights to the movie. So, yeah, they really don't care.
Moore is already a multi-millionaire, so neither does he. His main goal here is to stop GW from getting re-elected. He wouldn't care if they mailed out copies for free like AOL CD's. (Come to think of it, not a bad idea).
The only one's who could possibly care now is is the company who signs for home video distribution rights, but you know what? They will also make plenty of money on the deal.
He also got in hot water over similar statements he made about 'Bowling for Columbine', saying he doesn't care if people download it. The distributor of the DVD at the time had some issues with that statement. I'm not sure what happened there. But this time, I'm sure he avoided that issue.
Lighten up, everyone. It's Independence Day. I know I'll be eating a lot of dead cow, drinking a lot of beer, and blowing things up. As messed up as it is, I love this country. As for the film, it has a lot of good points and a lot of lies...now back to my burger....
Celebrate the finer things in life
that if right-wingers and the press applied the same scrutiny they've given Moore's film to the Bush administration, we might not be in the mess we're in today.
Alright. I overstated the capabilities of the Germans. They might not have conquered all of Russia, but they could have beaten it into submission. The drain of such a thing, coupled with the problems of a continual occupation of the rest of Europe and the necessity to maintain a war time footing for fear of renewed war with Britain and Russia would have lead to German collapse long before all of Russian could be crushed.
I was merely wanting to argue that the Soviets would have submitted if it weren't for the British (with the support of Americans... and Canadians.. heh). All Germany had to do would be to capture the important Central Asian oil fields and crumble their armies. What the hell good would the rest of the Soviet Union be? If it weren't for the Western Front, Germany would have been able to do this.
The economies of Germany and the Soviet Union would have collapsed long before the war was won... I doubt Great Britain would have been successfully invaded or conquered, let alone CONUS -- with our powerful economy, huge and diverse landmass, separation by two vast oceans, and well over 100 million well armed civilians.
Who said that the U.S. going to war in Europe was a good deed? We certainly had our reasons to go there, few of which were near being just. Don't forget most Americans had no interest in going to Europe. Roosevelt did everything he could to provoke the Axis powers (specifically Japan) through his economic foreign policy.
Before the U.S. officially entered World War II, America was violating neutrality by trading weaponry and war materials, as well as prosecution of German U-Boats. Though, technically I think the Germans drew first blood by sinking the USS Reuben James.
A thing I find funny about most Europeans today is that they thought we owed it to them to help them back then --- but yet we don't owe it to the Iraqis today. But now I think we're getting extremely far from Michael Moore...
Speckpot?
I find it funny that the people bitching about this don't donate the majority of their income like they think the rich should. I'm not talking about you in particular, but a lot of the people complaining about this will be the right wing media and average joes with a middle class existence. People who live comfortable lives with disposable incomes that often go towards their own leisure rather than the plight of others. It's the same as moore just to a different degree. I'm guilty of this, most people I know are too. Get over it, it's humanity.
Photos.
Maybe Moore &c should permit "remixing" the work. That way people could do things like remove very contentious content and put in up to date content. Remixing music has been around for a while, its time movies were available for this purpose too.
The part that got taken out was the part about the patriot act, which, IMO was lame and pointless.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
became independent and then tell me that the US wouldn't have eventually come into being. The US's independence was an inevitability given its growth but Germany might well have continued to owned France considering the extent of the collaberation.
And there was just a little difference in aims in the wars. France just wanted to screw England.
WWI did not threaten the United States, and there was no overriding national interest in going over there. It was, bluntly put, military charity. Complaining we didn't enter early enough is a bit like complaining a gift isn't expensive enough.
More importantly with respect to WW1, there wasn't really a "right" side to join. In WW2 Hitler was a rabid dog who needed to be dealt with, whatever the historic reasons for his rise to power. WW1 was nothing like that. Everyone involved was equally culpable (US included once they were in).
Since we are told repeatedly that the U.S. contribution was trivial and it was actually the Russians who defeated Germany, that shouldn't have caused any problems.
I don't think any reasonable person familiar with the facts could deny that the Russians were the most significant factor in winning WW2. However, without American intervention I suspect that the Russians would have ended up controlling even more of Europe than they did, and that would be far from a happily-ever-after ending.
This is not a slam at France (which was a monarchy at the time, and is now on their fifth republic while we are still on our first).
The US is on its second republic.
What I really love is that:
... even though their own bottom line hasn't been so good, but they've already made more money on it then they thought they would, so they are happy to share a little.
... Africa, that continent you like to ignore while their dictators murder each other, where half of the people of some countries carry the AIDS virus, where so many of your ancestors came from just a few generations ago, while Canada is trying to make a difference.
IT IS A CANADIAN COMPANY DISTRIBUTING THE MOVIE IN THE USA ! ! !
You americans were too scared to actually excersize your freedom of speech rights. Disney was too scared that a 'work of art' would be censored, and would risk them loosing tax benefits from brother Jeb.
And it is a reasonable Canadian company who is happy to not restrict the downloading of the movie
It's good being Canadian, and being able to tell you dumbass Dubya lovers that
I TOLD YOU SOOOOO !! ! !!
And not like France who resisted war because they were worried about profits from some shady deals with Iraq. We resisted because the reason given for war by that Dubya-fucker was a lie.
We were right all along, it was a lie that over 900 american soldiers have died for.
Damn americans. Just couldnt be patient and change things in a non-war type way like we helped to do in South Africa.
You know
That doesnt mean we should be a colony to France or anything. We've helped the whole of Europe too (WWII) as well.
That's fair enough, but you'd be amazed how many Americans think that France should act as a colony of the US. Or not amazed if you ever uncover your eyes and ears.
"But how dare they not do everything we say, we fought for their freedom!"
Turnabout is fair play.
they would just let us legally download movies that are WORTH watching, that would be great.
yea we have a democracy (...and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..) damn moron democrats!
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.
If I was holding stock in Disney, I would be demanding Eisner's resignation for this screwup.
God forbid if Al Quaida attacked at 3am. You would be all pissy that Bush was asleep.
So? As things went, he might as well have been asleep.
Bush: a pampered, rich-kid, yellow-bellied coward, hiding behind the flag.
(Which describes about half of the GOP pretty well, I might add.)
Fahrenheit 9/11
Bowling for Columbine
I will claim that Mike Moore does not "lie" per se ... rather Mike edits "creatively" ... May I ask you to read my entire post, consider all the links, especially the Babylon 5 "Illusion of Truth" plot summaries? The DVD is also available. You might also get a kick out of the Orwell aspects.
BTW, Happy 4th :-):-):-)
F911 - deceitful truth
END EXAMPLE showing Mike Moore being truthful albeit in a deceitful manner
Babylon 5 - deceitful truth
If you are still a wee-bit confused about how Mike Moore editing works then you can check out the Babylon 5 episode "Illusion of Truth" which taught me that:
"truth" might not always be ethical truth
"truth" might actually be a deceitful truth
Orwell - his other writings apropos to current events
Many mention/imply that the USA is headed in the direction of Orwell's "1984" (perhaps F911 is an example of 1984 techniques in action). However, many are not aware of Orwell's other writings. For example, Notes on Nationalism:
I believe Juanita
Does Moore hold the copyright himself? Or does it belong to some corporation, holding company, distributor, or the Weinstein brothers? And does Moore himself have the right to grant the right to copy to P2Pers? He might? But someone should make sure.
I hope that's insightful...
You're playing the game all wrong, man. Honesty will get you nowhere. You're supposed to say "I'm sure I'll get modded down for this, but...". THAT, my friend, is a guaranteed +1, insightful.
I think we have to go with the tinfoil boys on this one - it's to entice people into going.
Eh.. sort of. The constituational convention was called to alter the Articles. It was only after they realized that the first 3 pages of the Articles needed to be struck out and totally replaced did they abandon that end and start writing a new draft.
Regardless, if we are on Republic #2, the first only lasted 11 years and the current one is well over two hundred years old - not too shabby.
Dare I suggest (as I think others have) that sci-fi from the past again provides a window on current events. Those confused/angry about claims that Mike Moore "lies", "distorts the truth", and/or "fabricates" would do well to first watch the Babylon 5 episode "Illusion of Truth" which taught me that:
Orwell - his other writings apropos to current events
Many mention/imply that the USA is headed in the direction of Orwell's "1984" (perhaps F911 is an example of 1984 techniques in action). However, many are not aware of Orwell's other writings. For example, Notes on Nationalism:
One last thing ... I triple double dare you to watch the Iraq torture
video clip
I believe Juanita
It's "cannot," not "can not."
ohmigosh you mean they didn't go to the UN first to seek a non-violent diplomatic solution????? What would've all the Bush bashing anti-war goons said about the war of independence????
arielb
I was hoping someone would mention the Hitchens article, because it's just so comically baseless to anyone who actually reads it critically. To quote the link, "[Hitchens] claims lies have been told, but can only find one statement that could even be inferred as untrue - and even that's a stretch."
It's a laughing shame that anyone still takes that guy seriously.
Heck is a place for people who don't believe in Gosh.
I am also in a place where the release date is quite a while away. I believe it was 8.28 or something, way too long to wait. I got the POT version, then read about how crappy it was and decided to wait for something a BIT better to come out. After moore giving the go ahead and the studio not caring people will jump all over it.
What post? The one you're carrying inside your rusty innards!
Actually it seems to me the article quotes Moore and does not deny he said what he said. That said, the article DOES say that the companies involved are going to sue anybody who distributes the movie illegally.
The article goes on to describe the back and forth between supporters and detractors of the film and the almost "polticial campaign" behavior of both sides. This fight may be more significant than the actual Presidential campaign it is intended to influence.
Of course, Bush is planning the Second Korean War as we speak as his "October Surprise", so all this may become irrelevant - except to prove Moore was right.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
"You get all the fun of sitting still, being quiet, writing down numbers, paying attention...science has it all."
Excuse me? IRC networks don't actually handle the transfers, they merely facilitate the spread of information. IRC file transfers are actually direct transfers between source and destination.Uhh, it's still not legal, but the director and the distributor are just not going to give a damn about enforcing it unless someone starts sellign pirated copies
I wonder what percentage of that were people that actually decided not to go see it and dl it instead.. I doubt its actually that many.
You probably are right. I just don't think that a girl is going to be impressed by a date that consists of watching a grainy, downloaded movie on a 17" computer monitor.
Hey, I got this downloaded, but the vcd files don't play on any of my linux programs (xine, etc) Does anyone had hints on getting the vcd files to play on linux, or how to convert them to a playable format.
Alternatively, helping get my cd burner to burn in linux so I could actually make the vcd's would be acceptable as well!
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
I piloted an endeavour with AT&T and Warner Brothers about digital movies being downloadable when The Matrix came out. I re-encoded the movie using Windows Media Encoder(DivX wasn't as prolific back then) and brought the movie down to 181MB. It was near VCR quality at full screen and it was called "Watchable". The problem was that back then no one had the bandwidth to host this kind of file size with decent quality assurance. Their solution in the end was to use MBone to stream movies... hence your digital television which is IP based and multicast enabled. So until Internet bandwidth gets cheaper, you're stuck with movies on demand through your digial cable provider... which in many cases also controls the cost of your Internet provisioning. Coincidence?
F.U. to narrow minded slash stupids with censor points.
Msnbc article viewpoint
Many mention/imply that the USA is headed in the direction of Orwell's "1984" (perhaps F911 is an example of 1984 techniques in action). However, many are not aware of Orwell's other writings. For example, Notes on Nationalism:
One last thing ... I triple double dare slashdotters to watch the Iraq torture
video clip
I believe Juanita
more like Iraqi insurgents do now...
No, it isn't the 17" monitor that will impress her, it is the 12" something else!
Lend-Lease aid to the Soviets included (CW is Commonwealth):
Aircraft - 7,411 (CW) + 14,795 (US) = 22,206
Automotive:
--- Trucks - 4,020 (CW)
--- 1.5 ton trucks 151,053 (US)
--- 2.5 ton trucks 200,662 (US)
--- Willys Jeeps 77,972 (US)
Bren Gun Carriers - 2,560 (CW)
Boots - 15 million pairs (US)
Communications equipment:
--- Field phones - 380,135 (US)
--- Radios - 40,000 (US)
--- Telephone cable - 1.25 million miles (US)
Cotton cloth - 107 million square yards (US)
Foodstuffs - 4.5 million tons (US)
Leather - 49,000 tons (US)
Motorcycles - 35,170 (US)
Locomotives - 1,981 units (US)
Rolling stock - 11,155 units (US)
Tanks - 5,218 (CW) + 7,537 (US) = 12,755
Tractors - 8,701 (US)
Food supplies were equivalent to feeding an army of 6 million men for the duration of the war.
Overall, direct supplies of goods were approximately 10-12% of the entire Soviet war effort -- most of this delivered earlier, of course, when the effect was greater than piles of excess gear would be at the end of 1945.
Of the material the Soviets produced on their own, quite a lot of it was made with the aid of US advisors and by copying American designs, such as the ZIS and GAZ trucks. Even at that, at the end of the war, 1/3 of the trucks in use by the Soviet Army were US or British in origin.
To quote Marshal Zhukov:
Disparaging the US contribution to winning WWII is every bit as biased and ignorant as pretending the Soviets had nothing to do with defeating Germany, either.
Check out www.bowlingfortruth.com for starters. There are plenty more places that actually are telling the truth.
And for the record its not that i have a problem with people creating fiction/fantasy movies, its that they should NOT run around claiming they are 'documentaries', as he does..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Presuming you want to inform yourself (rather than protect yourself from insights that might contradict with your current opinions), I'd recommend starting to read more (by all means continue to read whatever if anything you're currently reading regularly).
The background/big picture:
Read:
Once you've done the above, you'll probably understand the need for finding good sources of daily news. Try any of the BBC news outlets and for example The Guardian. The Guardian also runs a news service regarding the news media itself, at media.guardian.co.uk (free registration required). For example, MediaGuardian runs a continuous special report on Iraq - the media war.
Sorry for the wakeup-call.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you".
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
I don't do the P2P thing for various reasons (old box, slow connection, tiny hdd, etc) or I would post the links myself.
With that said I'm not saying avoid moores films, I liked "roger and me" for instance, just to give a real politically neutral and independent guy a chance if this 911 deal is a subject you are interested in, or any other aspects of the creeping big brother society. That's all he deals with.. All he wants is truth to get out, and that's it. In my opinion it's a powerful film, decent enough to watch.
The American Enterprise Institute has a very dry panel discussion of the torture video on this page
The Iraq Torture Video:
I believe Juanita
...and I can see some people take their political viewpoints to the moderation booth
No, it isn't the 17" monitor that will impress her, it is the 12" something else!
;-)
Your 3.5" floppy sure won't impress her.
This story is a fake, please read the above link.
.
-shpoffo
Yes, something like that.
They have every right to fight us. As unpatriotic as it may be taken as, I'm quite glad that they are.
Speckpot?
"he's given so much credit by the so-called "left". "
Well Mike Moore isn't really the leftie's lefty. He's just the only left wing voice that most normal Americans ever hear, which is why he gets hit by rabid and disproportionate amounts of criticism by dribbling right-wing trolls much like yourself. Greg Palast and Noam Chomsky are much better, but almost nobody hears THEM and they're harder to criticise because they've got a much better command of the facts than Michael Moore. Hence you pick on the guy who gives you most bang for your dribbling troll buck, and even then, you get it wrong.
"So Mikey Moore won't send the IP "gestapo" around to me if I do copy his film? So what?"
Meaning he's a fuckload better than every single other Hollywood director that you conspicuously didn't criticise. Gnats and camels.
"As to the "open source way"... no. You've got it wrong. If Mikey Moore's movie were open source he would be releasing a decent copy of the film in some machine-readable format."
He's released a decent copy of the film. As a proper cinema film in a metal box and everything. That's the 'source' version, since everything else is just a lossy copy of that, even that nice DVD-friendly bitstream you're demanding he gives you for free. You CAN pay for that and make the digital copy you demand. Hey, someone has to make that machine-readable version, and it does involve a lot of actual work and capital expenditure, you know. Won't you get blackballed from your local society of libertarian loons if they hear you demanding that other people do work for you for free?
Richard Stallman didn't put out his early copies of emacs for free- if you got your emacs from Stallman, you had to pay him something like $150 or thereabouts. Do you expect Michael Moore to be even more of a puritan than good old RMS?
Besides, if you're going to criticise him for non 'open-source'-ness get it right. The major way he breaks that 'open source' thing is by his non-commercial restriction. Hope this helps.
ohmigosh you mean they didn't go to the UN first to seek a non-violent diplomatic solution????? What would've all the Bush bashing anti-war goons said about the war of independence????
Shows how blind faith can create idiots. There was no UN or league of nations in 1776.
We have found WMD. Even the Polish have found WMD including cyclosarin. Nasty stuff! But I guess you want the "Big Lie" to continue.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Nailed it Dude!
Don't forget to see what was left out before you make up your mind:
http://fahrenheit_fact.blogspot.com/
Of course it can. I would expect biased voters to try and stuff the box on both ends of the scale.
That's why IMDB's final score is a "weighted average".
While this was intended to be funny, there is some seriousness here. If I were Moore, and my goal was widest possible distribution, not most money made, putting it up for P2P download is a great idea. However, having gone to the trouble to shoot and edit the movie with high enough quality for movie projection, I'd want the highest possible quality to be downloadable. So, if he were really interested, he'd upload a copy from the original sources.
Moore saying that he supports downloading the movie and him actually releasing a copy himself are two different things. I don't believe he owns the distribution rights.
Well, it has never been successfully tested.
oh get a fucking clue... redcoats in their thousands asserting control over an agrarian colony are not in any way comparable to Nazis in their millions invading an industrialized country. Neither did the English have an agenda of simply exterminating a good proportion of the population...
It is a fact that without French support America today would be a radically different place if it existed at all. Possibly the neighbors to the north & south would have eventually absorbed the land - Mexico wasn't such a joke back then and for a long time owned Texas, California, etc. Whether their motives were love of freedom or simply sticking it to King George doesn't really matter. Do you seriously claim Americans invaded Europe for love of the French? Of course not - security concerns made it necessary to liberate Europe. If it had not been done the Nazi war machine would in time have recovered, alternatively the Russians would have owned the lot - both very undesirable outcomes for the USA.
You Americans just love to worship your founding fathers... yet you seem happy with a leadership that is as far from their stated aims as possible given the constraints of the constitution. And like obedient parrots you direct your anger towards the rest of the world, blind to the fact that your real enemy is within.
(Of course if you do make a few tens of millions a year and move in the right circles then it is reversed - your enemy is the population and your friends are in power. In which case Xenophobia, Nationalism and Patriotic Fervor are your most potent weapons.)
More importantly with respect to WW1, there wasn't really a "right" side to join. In WW2 Hitler was a rabid dog who needed to be dealt with, whatever the historic reasons for his rise to power. WW1 was nothing like that. Everyone involved was equally culpable (US included once they were in).
Furthermore, I think that WWI really began in earnest due to paranoia on all sides. Russia mobilized troops in areas which included some areas alongside the German border because they were afraid that the war would spread from Serbia and Bosnia into their territory. Germany expected Russia to attack them, and so the war began.
However, I am not sure that WWII was such a clear-cut case either. Hitler was bad, but in terms of abuses of power, I actually think that Stalin was worse. Furthermore, Stalin was able to use WWII to essentially make a massive land grab which Hitler could only dream of. In essence because Hitler declared war on Russia, that left Stalin being the more effective of two evils.
Also, Battle of Britain aside, the RAF and US bombers were far more geared towards massacring civilians than the German bombers were. And nothing can compare to the horrors of the firebombings of Tokyo or Dresden when the US pilots could smell the burning human flesh from their planes. Fortunately due to the new dangers of nuclear warfare, such tactics are obsolete...
WWII seems to me to be a clear example of a war where there is no good, just bad and ugly.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Belgium is just like Australia in this respect: you're allowed to abstain if you want to, but if you don't turn in a ballot, you can be fined something like USD$20.
If you've read about this film, you know that Disney and the directors had a huge dispute. The upshot was that any profits above a certain level are to be donated to a charity of Disney's choice.
So Moore doesn't give a shit about the profits. It isn't altruism; he just hates Disney.
A friend of a friend is in the reserve. He is currently stationed in Iraq. He said that it was common knowledge amongst the military, that they are running out of reserves and there may have to be a draft. I don't want to spread rumors, so can someone prove this one way or another?
Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
the eye
dev ide
bal ans
no fear
no fate
Who gives a hoot if it's propaganda. At last people in the US are getting to see a counterweight piece of propaganda to FOX News etc. (Which as someone in Europe - I find either just plain scary, or hilariously outrageous!)
As far as I can make out, it's explaining perfectly why the world is turning against the US. It's a big wakeup call to those responsible for Bush and his right-wing psychos. The voters of the USA.
If they screw up come September, I guarantee you, even my country, Ireland, will host few friends of America (not the same thing as Americans, but the worse things get, the more the distinction will blur). It's debatable as to whether you could say the US already has few friends in Ireland. Hello??? That should be a wake-up call!
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
A journalist knows a lot more about the subject he is writing than I do, and can attain considerable expertise in it if works on the same topics for several years, and as such I, as a reader, think he is fully entitled to his own opinion. Maybe the American journalism is more idealistic: It assumes that the reader is educated enough to come to his own conclusions and doesn't need help with that. But reality is otherwise.
Instead of having to pick between two experts debating on CNN, I would rather develop my own opinion step-by-step by getting to know the opinion of many journalist-experts, each of them adding a stone here and there to the complete mosaic.
Journalism without opinion means an overly big influence by the side which can (partly) dictate the rhythm of the news, is holding the press conferences, and which can spin the right images (i.e. usually the government). It means that having opinions is left to general-purpose columnists that may have little knowledge of finer points in the matter. It means that Bush can still claim that "Yes there was a link between Saddam an Al Quaida." without the journalists in front of him bursting out laughing, although pretty much no one seriously informed on this subject would still maintain this opinion. It means that no American journalist in Iraq has communicated back home how badly the interaction between the occupying forces and the Iraqis is going, until the biased Michael Moore goes and films it.
I would really wish American mainstream journalists would more often take their own stance on a matter, make Michael Moore unnecessary and generally laugh the overly partisan partisan followers out of the room, instead of professionally presenting even their more hilarious opinions.
Ha, ha, ha,... ha, ha, sob weep. That is sooo funny
Don't those short sighted lunkheads realise that UNAPPROVED DOWNLOADING DOES NOT DECREASE REVENUE. Sure, some people won't see the movie because they've seen a download, but even more people, who otherwise would not have seen the movie, WILL go to the movie because the interest raised from seeing a download.
Oh that all Bush's supporters were this stupid, then it would be easy.
I rented Bowling for Columbine from Blockbuster - although I live in Canada; perhaps the boycott only applies to the US stores?
Sure, without French support, mainly naval, the war of independence would at least have dragged on for a lot longer, but whether it would have been lost is an open question.
However, one big impetus for the 1775 war was the tremendous taxes Britain needed to raise to pay for the Seven Years war of Britain and the colonies against -- France! So it is a good question whether the colonies would have felt any need for rebellion without France.
Historical what-ifs have many tangles.
Infuriate left and right
I always thought the whole point of BitTorrent was that, as the demand increased, the available bandwidth rose proportionally. I'm downloading the SuprNova one (2042, the one without CAM in its title), at a whopping 5 KiB/sec, with an estimated 79 hours left. I'm uploading at 9 (was 15 a minute ago) KiB/sec. (Actually, at some point my upload will start to cut into my download... I need a traffic shaper. But that doesn't seem to be the issue yet, as much of my pipe is still unused.)
Is anyone else getting the absolutely abysmal speeds I'm getting? When Slashdot links to something like this, and when there aren't (m)any alternatives, I'd expect to be getting insane speeds. I'm a bit of a n00b to BitTorrent, but am I not right here?
________________________________________________
suwain_2
There's no way a small screen experience at home can compare with the large screen. Unfortunately, the big screen version is not even available in this country, and I'm not sure whether to wait it out or try to get the tiny preview.
The sordid truth is that I'm kind of scared of Dubya's giant head looming over me. Even in the theater, I think I want to sit in the back.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
There's too much bickering about whether the movie is liberal propogandist BS or whether's it's an accurate indictment of the current President. The fact remains that if no one sympathized with this movie no one would have noticed it. Don't believe me? Search for "DC 9/11" on IMDB. The right made their own film about the immediate aftermath of 9/11. And guess what? No one noticed.
I, for one, am slightly ashamed to be a citizen of a country which is loathed and ridiculed worldwide. And I'm horrified to have a President who confuses America with God.
Nowhere to be seen in Novosibirsk either :(
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
I hate BushCo and enjoyed Moore's movie, but I think this post is calm and well reasoned and certainly doesn't deserve a -1 troll rating.
It's absurd to think MM must fulfill every lecture request above his ask price. What about "Quantities are limited, while supplies last"?
Michael Moore does, presumably, possess free will as an economic optimizer. If he asks $120k/lecture, it's because he believes that should be the market rate for one lecture's worth of his time.
To be a bit less subtle: Michael Moore is displaying the same capitalist strategy as Halliburton, WalMart, and all the other American megacorps. He has a monopoly on his lectures, demand is high, and so he jacked the price. I know of no human being that has so thoroughly conquered greed (ego) as to not behave in this fashion.
Corollary: If MM approves of F911 torrents it's because he thinks doing so will maximize longer term revenue. If you like, I'll justify in depth why this decision is the correct self-maximizing behavior.
www.petitiononline.com/ttv00814/petition.html
Like the US revolution where half the US revolution army was French?
Where does this idiot live? I bet he lives in a nice big fancy house with a SUV.
Or, perhaps, who is living in a city or a neighborhood where being seen at this movie is bad.
Or, perhaps, who is living in a city where not a single theater has this movie.
how damn hard it is to spell Fahrenheit. Don't forget to search 'farenhite' and 'ferenheit as well.
Old Michael Moore is actually pretty good. His recent stuff, however, is nothing short of propoganda. The number of lies and half-truths he's been telling in his recent movies is just staggering.
I can't believe that people call this a documentary. Documentaries are supposed to be at least aiming for the truth. You should read this - http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
One of the more interesting points is that, while Richard Clarke is viewed as the hero in Moore's movie, it was him, and him alone who authorized the Saudi flights out of the US.
Of course, absolutely noone in the media ever mentions Gore's close ties with big oil, or the fact that he sold our Navy's national reserves to the company his Dad worked for, leaving us even more dependent on foreign oil than ever.
Engineering and the Ultimate
No dude, some of us got Hooked on Phonics when we were kids.
Fuck you!
The average moron (republican or fundy) you mean?
The French are against chickenhawks like the Bush
and Cheney pricks not against us.
You should have listened to the French minister a
bit more and not only the warmongers of the
whitehouse and at Fox.
A note about the lunatics who think that loving
the country means loving Bush. Remember the last
leader of a country who said something like that?
It was Hitler, to love Germany you had to love
Hitler. If you didn't love Hitler you were not a
true German.
Are we to think that Bush's followers are of the
same type as Hitler and his followers or just
plain stupid?
Second Korean War? Please elaborate.
What signature defines me as a person?
I 've already downloaded and seen F-9/11. The movies doesn't open in my country for several more weeks....and the nearest theatre showing it is 150kms from my small, rural town. I will buy the DVD when it comes out.
Only boring people are ever bored.
Here is a movieclip where he says that he is ok with people downloading his movie from internet, as long as it is not made for profit:
Moore About Filesharing.avi.torrent
hmmm. someone saw mel gibson in the patriot and now he is an expert on american history. maybe if you go see the passion of the christ you can be a bible scholar as well.
MPAA: "While we are happy that Michael Moore's films have brought him financial success, we are disappointed in his apparent lack of empathy for the movie theatre employees who rely on box-office ticket sales for their much more modest incomes."
MM: "While I am sympathetic to underpaid movie theater employees, I would remind the MPAA that those who download and watch my movie at home are not in any way served by those employees. I would further suggest that if the MPAA is so concerned with the well-being of theater employees that the industry pay them a better wage than the current national median of $6.78 per hour."
Post proof and I will read it though
This is one of the standard arguments, and is, in a simplistic way, irrefutable.
There is little doubt that recounts show that Bush won Florida. However,
- a huge number of voters were improperly excluded by K. Harris's office (50,000 to 100,000),
- and thousands of cast votes were spoiled by the idiotic design of the "butterfly ballot" .
These flaws in the Florida ballot are, to the best of my knowledge, not in dispute. In both cases, these flaws were biased heavily in favor of Bush. Most of the disenfranchised voters were black, who strongly favored Gore; and the butterfly ballot could be misinterpreted to create votes for Buchanan rather than Gore, or if the mistake was noticed, spoiled by voting for Gore and Buchanan.(I don't personally believe that the Republicans are clever enough to have designed the "butterfly ballot" to achieve the biased spoilage that occurred. For a picture of the "butterfly ballot" see the top of this WWW page.)
Thus, of the voters in Florida who attempted to register their preference, Gore won. Of those who were privileged enough to have their votes count, it would appear that Bush "won."
For an analysis of the Supreme Court's actions, see "None Dare Call It Treason" and for a (mostly ad hominem) rebuttal, see this.
The Democrats, meanwhile, caved in far too easily in the courts, and found it far easier to beat up Nader for "losing" Florida rather than to contemplate their own lame campaign (how could Gore lose Tennessee! Crikey!). This lameness is repeated again four years later. The press, by and large, has been pleased to kick Dean, and ignore Kucinich --- both of whom have injected far more interest into the campaign than has Kerry.
And now Michael Moore comes along, a provocative slob with a keen wit and an unblinking camera. The results are just fascinating; the only people who seem surprised by the public's response are the pundits. If any of them had bothered to go to the caucuses in Washington State last February, they would have been stunned by the huge reservoir of contempt for W that has built up inexorably over the past three years.
Here is a link explaining how Moore's alleged stance on copyright issues is being used to damage the profitability of the film:
Oh, teriffic.
Now if his box office numbers tank he can blame the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (TM) rather than word-of-mouth from the first viewers about the quality and/or accuracy (or lack thereof) of the film.
He gets his message out, money, to blame his opposition, and to help the RIAA with its flamewar on techno-"Pirates", all in one swell foop.
And that means we'll probably be hearing ANOTHER round of media hype for ANOTHER of his hit pieces next year.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"If Moore's film were actually full of shit, like you say, then people would just ignore it like hundreds of other documentaries. Since it has millions of Republican's panties in a bunch, it must be doing something right. People only get this defensive when they know deep down inside that they're wrong."
Just 4 words prove this logic a bit fallacious (or do they?)
BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION
Enjoy!
First of all, the Americans fought a conventional war against Great Britain. The guerilla component was quite limited in scope. And we won only three major battles (Saratoga, Trenton/Princeton and Yorktown).
Second, where were these "quite a few victories" the American Navy won? To my knowledge, every American Naval success of the war is attributable to John Paul Jones (a former British merchant Captain who fled to the US to escape charges for killing two sailors). Jones had considerable success harassing british shipping and won a notable victory over two British frigates. Benedict Arnold's defense of Lake Champlain was a strategic success, but tactically his "fleet" (if you could call it that) was destroyed. Perhaps you are thinking of the War of 1812?
Third, the British DID send two powerful fleets, including ships of the line, to New York and the Chesapeake Bay. And it nearly won the war for them. The purpose was to secure the ports and solidify supply lines. Lucky for us, the French defeated the recently combined fleets at the Battle of the Virginia Capes. The defeat caused huge logistical problems for the British, not the least of which was delivering Cornwallis to the tender mercies of 3000 French and 3000 American troops under Washington at Yorktown.
Lastly, British military tactics had nothing to do with civilized warfare. They were about volume of fire. Certainly skirmishers and snipers had their place. The British employed them as well (including their Iroquois Confederation allies). But 18th century warfare was about massed musketry. Both sides fought that way.
...considering it tanked at the box office, about the only way its going to get distributed is by johnny download. And the DVD is expected out this fall? Don't count on it boys - McCain-Feingold will put the kaibosh on sales for September and October.
Malaysia.
It just appeared two days ago here. I am always curious as to which movies are popular here (because I wonder what sort of perceptions people develop of the West) so I give the tables a scan when I pass by.
Sorry - PC CDROMs are US$1.25 here!
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Hell, one lie I can think off the top of my head immediately is his assertion that Saddam's Iraq never killed or threatened a single American. Things like that made my jaw drop in the theater, but of course, the Moore fans sitting around me were just spellbound and didn't question. I guess people ignore truths when it supports their viewpoint, ignoring the Western hostages during the Kuwait invasion, the decade of firing up at our fighters in the no-fly zone, Saddam's boasting of terrorist sponsorship.
Take a step backwards. Find out when Kuwait is invaded. Then find 'hostile' references before Kuwaiti invasion.
No-fly zone? Are you KIDDING? That was just a legal mumbo-jumbo to allow US/UK to bomb Iraq continously, for the past 13 years...
Two other movies and 35 books say your government is extremely corrupt, and that's all you can say?
Oh no! I will have to pinch myself and hope to wake up soon, or I will risk losing the friendship and support of all the Irish.
Um...get over yourself, mate.
OK, that was a dig, just for you. The part of your post that tattoos "STUPID" across your forehead is the "who cares about the truth, others have lied" message in the first sentence.
Good luck.
Why do those 12year old lamers out there rar up an iso of a vcd? Its worse when you get 34 zips of 34 rars which turn out to be one big rar, which decomps to one iso.
.iso by itself or the .avi by itself.
hello lamers!!! just use ONE rar file or ONE multipart archive, if it wont compress any better (like it would) just torrent the
Talk bout either 12 yearold loosers, or 35 yearold sceners from the 80s still using DOS and 8.3 chars and multiarchieve releases.
Get with the times. If its a cam/vcr job, always use divx/xvid at 500kbps AVIs, not wastefull SVCDs, convert yourself or use an xbox to watch em.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
No, i got the vcd cam version.
I wish someone would do a telesync of it already, my parents would love to see it, but would need to be able to pause it and take breaks.
"To assume Iraq had WMD and act accordingly?"
C'mon. You and I both know this isn't about WMD. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said so: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue -- weapons of mass destruction -- because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
The fundamental reason we chose to go to war with Iraq was to reshape the Middle East by providing an example of Arab democracy. That, and to ensure access to oil. Bush and his administration knew that the American people wouldn't support a war based on these two factors alone, so they blew Saddam's nonexistent threat out of proportion to scare the American people into sending their kids off to die over there.
That's what Wolfowitz's quote means, if you read it in context. He's saying that they had these much grander ideas that they knew simply wouldn't fly with the American people.
If there one time the American people deserve honesty, it's when you're sending their kids away to die in a foreign country. And Bush lacked the courage to do that. That's why I can't vote for the man. The My-Pet-Goat thing is just a revealing, darkly humorous example of his ineptitude.
Perhaps you missed the part about "freedom toast" and "freedom fries" that your Bush loving bretherin made happen a while back. The Anti-French work of the Bush league conservatives has been rampant. What the poster was worried about was the frightenng anti-French stance of your Appointed President. I know the Neo-Cons dont need the Worlds opinion, but surprisingly, the rest of the world does.
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
Spansanity.org has a good writeup of some of the many problems with Fahrenheit 9/11.
Faced with this kind of intellectual dishonesty day in and day out from the right wing media it's disheartening to see these practices used by people on the left.
The complaints are usually aimed at the cowardice and weakness of the French republic which didn't emerge for at least a decade after that (1789?).
That is a pretty ignorant statement as you are ignoring a lot of French history after 1789. The biggest ommision is Napoleon. Did you not know that Napoleon Controlled most of Europe? He was also slugging it out with our main Enemy in the early 19th century, the English. Remember when the British invaded the U.S in 1812 and burned D.C.? France was anything but weak under Napoleon. You also seem to be ignoring the hardships that the French endured over the 19th and 20th century. The aftermath of the Napoleonic wars left France with an installed Monarch and a subsequent revolution in 1830. France dealt with a serious shortage of Men over the 19th and 20th century due to heavy losses in Wars, ( Napoleonic,Franco-Prussian, WWI and WWII ). It's hard to fight Wars when there are missing generations of Men.
I think your view of France has been shaped by the English. The English hate the French. They have a very big rivalry as they were at war with each other for hundreds of years. Much of our society and law have been influenced by the English. After all aren't most Americans more familiar with the Kings and Queens of England than of France? When you think of the middle ages and knights do you not think of King arthur and an English settings. The fact is the French and other European countries were more advanced at an earlier stage than the English. Just travel to England and France and compare the architecture and the time periods in which they were built. You will see that the French were more advanced in their architecture and building methods than the English. For more info on why the Brittish hate the French and vise versa.... theotherside
Hey tiger, help explain this:
p g
. htm
http://rutcor.rutgers.edu/~bisrael/ChiracSaddam.j
http://www.usainreview.com/2_11_Chirac_Connection
http://images.ibsys.com/2003/0322/2057832.jpg
Explain why the future head of state of France is dancing around with Saddam, a murderous Baathist in a NUCLEAR facility.
The real reason France and Chirac opposed was simply this: France sold nuclear and conventional weapons technology to Saddam along with the Russians. Ask any Americans and British how bad some of the French missile systems are. Here is a secret, France used its status with NATO to get the missile "secrets" from the USA, then sold them to a future enemy of the US.
Don't give me this highfalutin fucking bull about Hitler. Hitler arguments mean you lost the argument. Its real just subterfuge and cover-up with whip out Hitler when you disagree with a point of view.
While Rums and other diplomats may have met with Saddam, and before Saddam with a ruthless dictator, JFK help setup a rebellion in Iraq, and while Saddam was useful in the struggle against Iran (I suppose you like Fatwahs and Ayatollah's anti western edicts?), no person who is now head of state actually engaged in the proliferation of western technologies worse than Chirac.
ROT.
Moore Lies
Moore Exposed
Moore Watch
Michael Moore Hates America
If you do need to give it a chance, read what the other side has to say, but keep your B.S. detector on for both. Acting the windup zealot for the sake of Moore or his critics will make you look like a fool.
Or, you could save your money and watch a real documentary on PBS or BBC.
...yellow number five, yellow number five, yellow number five...
It describes Fox News and the rest of the conservative media perfectly. Notice how Sheridan = insane matches the Gore = insane to a tee. Both sides faked concern for condition of the person they were viscously attacking, claiming to once have had respect for them but now are utterly dismayed at the "turn for the worse" they've taken. The Republicans and Clark's people both used appeals to xenophobia and over-generalized hate and fear to imply a sinister connection between dangerous Aliens (read foreigner - John Kerry looks French) and their political enemies, and both groups say that you can only trust those within their closed society, ( aliens/foreigners and political disruptors are all conspiring to destroy YOU). Both sides take their opponents grossly out of context, like the way Bush is trying to say Kerry would have our soldiers fighting with rocks and sticks because he voted against a couple of pork laden defense appropriation bills. It's a perfect primer to dealing with the right wing media in our country. Comparing it to Michael Moore though seems kind of weak though. I still haven't heard valid answers to many of the questions he raised. Why did we do such a poor job on Afghanistan? i.e. allowing so much of the Taliban and Al Qaeda to get away, not building a decent government but rather just relying on the old warlord ruling class, not moving the country away from radical Islam. 11,000 troops? Is that really all we could muster against the man who took 3000 of our lives? Why did we invade Iraq, a secular country with 1 brief contact with Al Qaeda to broker some kind of peace so Al Qaeda would quit targeting them that went no where and happened a decade ago? We knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but if you listened to Republican sources they always carefully chose language which would leave you with the impression that they were. Over 70% of the American people believed Iraq caused 9/11; they didn't just pull that idea from nowhere. I simply don't understand what you guys thought you were doing over there. It wasn't protecting us, it didn't help us. At least Moore has a believable explanation for why we did what we did, greed and lust for power. I sure as hell know we didn't go over there out of the goodness of our hearts. I simply don't believe that the same people who rail night and day against the evils of "socialized" medicine, welfare, and public education have turned into bleeding heart liberals. If you won't pay a few thousand dollars a year to help out your suffering American brothers, then how can you expect me to believe that you'd pay with your son or daughter's life to help out some suffering Iraqi's?
I guess your opinions on Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11 depend on where you get your information. You, unfortunately, chose to point out that your information comes from a well known, and well debunked personal attack by Christopher Hitchens against Michael Moore.
My suggestion is if you choose to get your information about someones credibility, at least try to choose a credible source.
hmm, looked ok in the word processor, let's try again. It describes Fox News and the rest of the conservative media perfectly. Notice how Sheridan = insane matches the Gore = insane to a tee. Both sides faked concern for condition of the person they were viscously attacking, claiming to once have had respect for them but now are utterly dismayed at the "turn for the worse" they've taken. The Republicans and Clark's people both used appeals to xenophobia and over-generalized hate and fear to imply a sinister connection between dangerous Aliens (read foreigner - John Kerry looks French) and their political enemies, and both groups say that you can only trust those within their closed society, ( aliens/foreigners and political disruptors are all conspiring to destroy YOU). Both sides take their opponents grossly out of context, like the way Bush is trying to say Kerry would have our soldiers fighting with rocks and sticks because he voted against a couple of pork laden defense appropriation bills. It's a perfect primer to dealing with the right wing media in our country. Comparing it to Michael Moore though seems kind of weak though. I still haven't heard valid answers to many of the questions he raised. Why did we do such a poor job on Afghanistan? i.e. allowing so much of the Taliban and Al Qaeda to get away, not building a decent government but rather just relying on the old warlord ruling class, not moving the country away from radical Islam. 11,000 troops? Is that really all we could muster against the man who took 3000 of our lives? Why did we invade Iraq, a secular country with 1 brief contact with Al Qaeda to broker some kind of peace so Al Qaeda would quit targeting them that went no where and happened a decade ago? We knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but if you listened to Republican sources they always carefully chose language which would leave you with the impression that they were. Over 70% of the American people believed Iraq caused 9/11; they didn't just pull that idea from nowhere. I simply don't understand what you guys thought you were doing over there in Iraq. It wasn't protecting us, it didn't help us. At least Moore has a believable explanation for why we did what we did, greed and lust for power. I sure as hell know we didn't go over there out of the goodness of our hearts. I simply don't believe that the same people who rail night and day against the evils of "socialized" medicine, welfare, and public education have turned into bleeding heart liberals. If you won't pay a few thousand dollars a year to help out your suffering American brothers, then how can you expect me to believe that you'd pay with your son or daughter's life to help out some suffering Iraqi's?
It describes Fox News and the rest of the conservative media perfectly. Notice how Sheridan = insane matches the Gore = insane to a tee. Both sides faked concern for condition of the person they were viscously attacking, claiming to once have had respect for them but now are utterly dismayed at the "turn for the worse" they've taken. The Republicans and Clark's people both used appeals to xenophobia and over-generalized hate and fear to imply a sinister connection between dangerous Aliens (read foreigner - John Kerry looks French) and their political enemies, and both groups say that you can only trust those within their closed society, ( aliens/foreigners and political disruptors are all conspiring to destroy YOU). Both sides take their opponents grossly out of context, like the way Bush is trying to say Kerry would have our soldiers fighting with rocks and sticks because he voted against a couple of pork laden defense appropriation bills. It's a perfect primer to dealing with the right wing media in our country.
Comparing it to Michael Moore though seems kind of weak though. I still haven't heard valid answers to many of the questions he raised. Why did we do such a poor job on Afghanistan? i.e. allowing so much of the Taliban and Al Qaeda to get away, not building a decent government but rather just relying on the old warlord ruling class, not moving the country away from radical Islam. 11,000 troops? Is that really all we could muster against the man who took 3000 of our lives? Why did we invade Iraq, a secular country with 1 brief contact with Al Qaeda to broker some kind of peace so Al Qaeda would quit targeting them that went no where and happened a decade ago? We knew Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but if you listened to Republican sources they always carefully chose language which would leave you with the impression that they were. Over 70% of the American people believed Iraq caused 9/11; they didn't just pull that idea from nowhere.
I simply don't understand what you guys thought you were doing over there. It wasn't protecting us, it didn't help us. At least Moore has a believable explanation for why we did what we did, greed and lust for power. I sure as hell know we didn't go over there out of the goodness of our hearts. I simply don't believe that the same people who rail night and day against the evils of "socialized" medicine, welfare, and public education have turned into bleeding heart liberals. If you won't pay a few thousand dollars a year to help out your suffering American brothers, then how can you expect me to believe that you'd pay with your son or daughter's life to help out some suffering Iraqi's?
>> If you have evidence that something in the film is untrue, then please be specific.
i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm
OK. Here ya go -- http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-
Go read. And when you get back you may apologize to me right here:
___________________________________________
Generally such things are based on a grain of truth - much related to the government or rather prevailent attitudes. Or popular rumour.
As a Canadian, I've seen my share of beaver/igloo/etc style comments on slashdot, but I'be enough humility to realize that many are - in fact - quite funny. The ones that attack the political stances in my country are actually often correct as well.
>> Saying it's not a documentary does not make its content false.
s -i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm
No, the CONTENT of the film makes its content false:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceit
>>But assuming that Moore's film is factually correct but biased in what facts it presents, it is indeed a documentary.
i x-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm
F911 is riddled with gross distortions of fact. See for yourself:
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftys
Don't believe that Moore distorts the facts? How about 56 of 'em:
s -i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceit
>>I think a more suiting one would be "fifty-six insignifciant instances of nitpicking."
s -i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Uh, yeah. Isn't it annoying when reality and proof get in the way of your perceptions and you have to choose one over the other?
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceit
That's WAY beyond nitpicking. It singlehandedly refutes 2/3rds of the film (yet agrees with the part about the so-called Patriot Act, BTW).
You're using elitist irresponsibly.
:).
What makes you think that the average american, you and I included know the best way to spend our money? We live in a republic. We elect a government to spend our money for us. It works with varying degrees of success but I think the situation is far more nuanced than you make it out to be. What about social welfare? Most people aren't concerned with that.
Did you know that red states, the ones that vote for tax cuts, get MORE dollars back from the federal government than they put in? All this while voting for candidates who promise not to have uncle sam take their hard earned bucks away? It's not like they're voting for equitable distribution, they're voting based on tax cuts and pork and this is the result. How is this possible? Parties focused on re-election not sensibility. And while the party is insane it's constituents are just as mad.
Why do you think that earning a buck means you automatically know how to spend it? What about tariffs supported by our republican candidate? What about non-tarrif barriers (like farm subsidies) too? These affect spending immensely. Where does the control lie?
Now if you're not a conservative as the previous paragraph assumes, but a libertarian -- and hence opposed to NTBs and tarrifs and the like -- the questions change. The only question there is, is over positive liberty, social programs, etc. This has been covered in enough policy and philosophy debates over the years that I feel there is little I can add to the discussion. I'm tired and I dont' want to extend this post by several pages, so I'll just say I'm far more convinced of the good of (some) government run programs than more radically libertarian leaning stuff
At any rate this is all irrelevant to the present election. George Bush didn't really cut taxes, he shifted them. By increasing spending and cutting taxes thereby increasing the deficit all he's done is shifted today's taxes onto another generation. If you want to cut taxes vote for a president who promises to cut expenditures first, taxes second. Because Reagan and Bush have only ever done the tax side of this (reagan even failed trying this). As any reasonable analysis can tell you, the clowns in office talk such utter horseshit and have zero emphasis on real policy, they need to move over and let the real boys play.
More cash in your pocket equaling more control is nothing but a myth.
Photos.
"The English hate the French." Now there's a generalisation if ever I've heard one. As an Englishman, I'm quite offended by this. All of our countries have a chequered history. Sometimes our leaders (be them monarchy or polititions) have made bad decisions, sometimes good ones. I think France is a wonderful place, full of culture and friendly people. If you come and get to know real English people, you might think differently of us. I work with North Americans, most of them from Utah. It is amusing how little some of them know about anything outside of their own country, but they laugh along and are happy to learn. In the meantime, use English get a new perspective of living in the USA. Wouldn't it be great if we could all just get along?
Michael Moore completely supports the P2P downloading of his film ... his distribution company, however, will sue you pants off.
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
Iraq 2? We can't say that the bullshit in Iraq that Dubya started has finished until people stop getting their heads cut off, and attacks on the innocent stop. Sorry, but you can't just say "OK. We can stop now" when you've put your head in a noose that you made and stepped off the ladder. Iraq 2 is not over. One thing is clear though... you're a fucking idiot.
Un-news
Can someone tell those smartass 'actors' not news reporters to read that :-)
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
You are completely forgetting the Nazi invasion of the United States when George W. Bush and Co. took (literally) office in 2000. Think I'm kidding? Look at all the procedures and quotes that the Bush admin has completely lifted from the Third Reich. Also consider the fact that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and Rove all have connections (some in terms of bloodlines) back to Hitler, Goerring, Goebbels et al. Grandpa Bush was more than happy to do business with the Third Reich during WW II. Why? Because it was profitable. Little things like morals, values and ethics matter not to the Bush family. This country is in HUGE trouble folks. We've been occupied for almost four solid years now. In November, we can try to take back our country from these monsters legally. If that fails, then we must take back our country by any means at our hands.
Tell me, which founding father repeatedly proposed a constitutional amendment allowing conscientious objectors to avoid military service on religous grounds?
Or an easy one, which founding father thought that the constitution would have to be scrapped after 50 years?
Or who exactly was involved in the famed "XYZ" affair?
Where's your warrent to support your claims that Hitchens is as bad as Moore is? Until I see any sort of proof backing up your statement, I can only assume it is false. Otherwise, I would be just as justified to believe the grandparent.
Until then, here's a link to think about.
I've seen F/911 and Dick Clarke really isn't the hero of the movie. He is on screen only once, and Mr. Clarke's record on that point is still unclear.
c he ns_overst.html
A good read is here:
http://econ4dean.typepad.com/lerxst/2004/06/hit
If you actually saw F/911, Moore has no heros in the film. Maybe an a retired FBI agent. Or Lila Lipscomb. But then again they're really not heros. They're victims of the circumstances or actors in a neo-greek tragedy -- a war that was started with lies.
It's funny -- you use the word propaganda. That's how we got into this stupid war in the first place, isn't it? A president or government lying, falsifying, or exaggerating to his people about the need for a war?
From the piss-ant like rage this movie has stirred, it is clear that Americans aren't far away from becoming like the terrorists. We haven't yet taken it from our souls and minds and put it into our hands like the suicide bombers, but it looks closer than ever.
I see no charity here, no baseline of understanding, just a bunch of generally healthy and intelligent people exhibiting behavior that reveals there isn't much left preventing their hatred moving from their tongues to their fists.
If the copyright holder (presumably either Mr. Moore or Lions Gate Films) specifically gives you a permission to distribute the film over p2p, then yes, it's legal. Such permission is known as a license.
Whether Mr. Moore's words in the article qualify as a legally binding license is another matter. Any lawyers reading this please comment ?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The French didn't even complain after allied raids during WW2 killed thousands of civilians. They realized that they had to endure, that they had to keep up the fight, and that losses were inevitable. They didn't hate the allied forces for killing thousands of civilians either, but showed them incredible gratitude.
France was (un)fortunate enough to be the stage of the main invasion of Europe, made by not only US forces, but with help from many European countries. You think the US was the only country which took casualties? Think again. (By the way, one of the reasons why the US took heavy casualties on Omaha beach was that they lost many tanks at sea - they deployed them too early, before they were close enough to the shore for the floating tanks to reach it. Had the US command waited as it should have, they would have had an easier time, and would be able to clear mines, barb wire and blow up German strong points without too heavy losses. That is not to say that the US troops didn't fight bravely - they did. They did an excellent job, and their sacrifice will be remembered.)
Had the allies allowed Hitler to gain an even stronger foothold, the US would have been doomed, and the US knew that. So, the invasion was necessary for its survival. Don't try to give me that "we didn't do it to help ourselves" crap, because it's a tired old lie.
Clever signature text goes here.
The French also took heavy civilian casualties when the allied bombed French cities. Despite having been killed in the thousands by allied bombers, the French people greeted the allies with flowers, smiles and kisses.
To claim that the French waited for someone else to storm the beaches, that they let someone else do the fighting, is misguided at best, but closer to insulting and ignorant of the incredible sacrifices made by all countries during WWII, including the French.
The US lost about three thousand soldiers when storming the beaches in an operation where several countries were involved, IIRC. Soldiers who were sent in by their leaders, who knew well that it would be a slaughter house. These soldiers knew that they probably wouldn't make it back. The French, on the other hand, lost several thousand civilians - innocent people who were not soldiers, who were not trained to fight, who were not there to die. They were simply innocent civilians, including women and children. Entire families were wiped out.
Just because France was taken and there was no French army there doesn't mean that the French didn't fight.
The bottom line is that all countries made great sacrifices, and the allied worked together to defeat Germany. The US troops who lost their lives on D-day will never be forgotten by the French, or by anyone else for that matter. But the fact that the sacrifices made by other countries, French civilians in particular, are played down by people such as yourselves, is an insult not only to the French who gave their lives, and their families, but to the brave US, British, Canadian, etc. troops who gave their lives to rid the world of Hitler.
You are not a true American. You are a self-centered couch American who is proud of yourself for the sacrifice of others, yet you do not recognize the sacrifices of those who do not belong to your country.
Shame on you.
Clever signature text goes here.
But in a way, you bring up a good point. Is he telling the truth in a deceitful way or telling deceit in a truthful way? Moorewatch makes this case as clear as mud, because surely one is worse than the other -- especially when used as justification for war, right?
What is clear is that Condi has been saying for a long time that there has always been a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda -- the case for guilt by association (if you will). Technically, Iraq is not responsible for the events of 9/11, but they were responsible for helping Al Qaeda who was responsible for 9/11. It's no wonder then that most people thought that Iraq had some responsibility for 9/11.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/200 3-09-06 -poll-iraq_x.htm
But there was never a link established between Iraq and Al Qaeda. So it would appear that the administration is at least no less guilty of what Moorewatch accuses Mr. Moore of doing, but possibly more guilty since they were delivering falsehoods as gospel
I'm beginning to think Mike wanted to put that in, just so his outspoken critics would fall into his trap. Mike could then pull out his trump card and say "Ha!":
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Con do leeza_Rice
And WOW... look at this site:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/ir aq_on_t he_record/
Do a search on Condi and Al-Qaeda:
I don't call it a documentary. It is partial documentary and partial Op-Ed piece. Perhaps 10% propaganda too.
But we need it, because there is no balance in the U.S. media. No one is showing the real effects of the continuing war in Iraq (the one that was said to be completed over a year ago). As well, people's memories are short and this movie serves to remind us how many times Bush and friends lied to us about the weapons of mass destruction and other issues.
There are several books publishing the facts that Moore uses, but only a small number of Americans will read them. TV or movie is the only way to reach the masses, and for this reason, a counter view to everything NBC/CNN/ABC/FOX has said in repeating Bush's propaganda is much needed.
We've already heard 2 years and 730 hours of Bush propaganda, so at this point, I don't care how much fun Moore wants to poke at him in 2 hours.
BTW, you Americans gotta lighten up. We have a TV show in Canada that does this with all of our political leaders, and it runs every week! It is produced by Salter Street studios - the same company producing Bowling for Columbine and also mentioned in credits for F 911.
Regardless of all of the itty-bitty details, I don't think anyone can deny 3 basic ideas covered by the movie:
1. Bush and friends earn more in their Saudi business connections than they do in working at their government jobs.
2. The world was lied too about the weapons of mass destruction, in order to create a false sense of urgency to act in Iraq.
3. The only remaining reason for the U.S. interest in Iraq is oil. Invading a country to access its resources is not justified.
I end with this thought:
Imagine if all of the billions spent on Iraq had been spent on a huge research project on alternative energy technologies. I'd think that by now, a Mahattan Project scale of effort would have produced some very interesting results and a way to get us off oil dependance, which when you slap yourself in the face and wake up - we need to get off anyway.
I wish someone would do a telesync of it already, my parents would love to see it, but would need to be able to pause it and take breaks.
VCDs and DVDs are MPEG data streams.
MPEG can pause. An MPEG is made of GOPs which are still frames followed by segments of streaming video. You can pause on the still frame (GOP header).
Sounds like Moore's endorsement of online versions will work as a promotion. The quality of downloads, even for a documentary, just isn't great so it's likely to lead to more ticket sales. It works for smaller, independent bands, why not aslo documentaries? For that matter, it worked for the Grateful Dead, too, and that was no small money.
The main problem with downloads would be getting modified versions, that were edited accidently (e.g. missing a bit or munged data). Or, worse getting one that was edited on purpose with out of context quotes or rude inserts.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I went to see it in the movie theater, declining to see a copy a friend had because I hate watching movies with bad visual artifacts. I paid $10.50 (after Fandango). I liked it, but most of the shots were recorded from broadcasts so 35MM prints don't help at all. Watching it on my computer or in my living room wouldn't have detracted from the expierience. All I can say is, hey Micael, can I have my $10.50? I promise I'll buy the DVD and show it to all who will watch when it comes out.
Liquid Window - Live Dance Music
I saw "Columbine". That was enough for me. If "9/11" is even close, I'm glad to give it a miss.
But thanks for the patronizing bullshit. Let me guess, you're Kerry voter?
I do not have a signature
>Actually, you're both wrong--it's a chimpansee.
If you can guess from which game this quote is from
you win a special place in my heart.
which is why he gets hit by rabid and disproportionate amounts of criticism by dribbling right-wing trolls much like yourself.
.sig on Slashdot is a link to an anti-intellectual-property article.
You fucking moron. I'm farther to the left than 99% of the population-- have been for years and years. You apparently know jackshit about the situation and are doing more than your fair share of dribbling yourself. However, if you're what passes for the "left" these days, I might consider voting for right wingers just to piss you idiots off.
better than every single other Hollywood director that you conspicuously didn't criticise.
Conspicuously didn't my ass, you loser. I've been criticizing Hollywood roundly for quite some time now. But I don't expect you to stop and gather any facts in your zeal to be a dipshit to me. Even my
Besides, if you're going to criticise him for non 'open-source'-ness get it right. The major way he breaks that 'open source' thing is by his non-commercial restriction.
Were you dropped on your head as a baby? I wasn't criticizing Michael Moore for anything of the sort. I was criticizing your comparison. And then you've given another example of how the comparison isn't quite apt. Thank you for that.
As it is, this is the one thing I've seen Mikey Moore do that I consider even remotely admirable. Maybe if he'd keep that nobility in mind when he's thinking about taking certain lesbians to task (I bet you don't even know what I'm talking about here though), I'd find him a bit more palatable.
I do not have a signature
If you had a contract, why didn't you insist that he honor it? (If you didn't have a contract, sucks to be you.)
I can't believe that you think your three points are undenyable. If anything _that_ shows you how skewed the media is.
"Bush and friends earn more in their Saudi business connections than they do in working at their government jobs."
I'll give you this one.
"The world was lied too about the weapons of mass destruction, in order to create a false sense of urgency to act in Iraq."
Excuse me? Every administration in the last 25 years has known that Iraq has WMD and is working on building up their arsenal. Clinton bombed a Vx gas factory in Sudan that was jointly funded by Al Qaeda and Saddam. Israel had to bomb Iraq in order to destroy their nuclear weapons program. In addition, we know they had WMD because in the 80s we sold them some. Nowhere in any of their reports submitted to the UN did they say where those weapons went. So, why haven't we found them? The reason for the urgency for going to war was that Saddam was busy trucking their WMD over to Syria and giving it to other organizations.
The interesting thing is that we have found some remnants of Saddam's arsenal. One of the roadside bombs that went off had gas (I can't remember if it was Vx or mustard gas). In addition, a "perfume factory" we went into was heavily booby-trapped so that going into it brought down the whole structure, and with it any evidence we might gather.
The only thing that we found that was a complete lie were the roaming bio-terror labs. And it wasn't the administration who lied, it was our informants.
"The only remaining reason for the U.S. interest in Iraq is oil. Invading a country to access its resources is not justified."
If we invaded for access to its resources, why are gas prices still so high? Also, did you miss the President's state of the union address where he listed 7 reasons for going into Iraq? He even left out the big one, because it was too technical for most people - that we had a cease-fire with Iraq under certain terms, which they are now and have been for a while in violation of.
Another reason for going to war, which was not mentioned in the state of the union address (and for some reason is never mentioned in the media), was that we had intelligence given to us directly from Russia that Saddam was planning a terrorist attack on US soil. This is quite in line with his history, as he had also attempted the assassination of GB senior, and was providing safe haven and money to the 1993 WTC bomber who escaped from the US.
The reasons GWB lists are:
1) WMD including attempting to build a nuclear arsenal.
2) Links to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, which it helps to fund, and protect their terrorists (which the 9/11 commission determined DID occur)
3) Promotion of democracy in the middle east. It is the belief of the administration that setting up a democracy in the middle east will help transform the state of the middle east. This is not a short term goal but a long-term one (probably 10+ years). Saddam is an enemy that we have legitimate reason to war with (due to the previous cease-fire agreements which he is violating), so we fought them to establish a democratic government. The future will tell if this was wise or foolish, just remember that this is a long-term, not a short-term goal.
4) Humanitarian reasons - free people from Saddam Hussein. This one was accomplished. Some people look at the acts of a few aberrants in the military and think everyone is like that (like at Abu Ghrabe). However, the stories that aren't reported are numerous, including a military man who saw a little Iraqi girl playing with unexploded ordinance, and jumped on top of it. It exploded under him. He gave his life for a little Iraqi girl, leaving his own children without a father. This has been one of the most humane wars ever fought. Sure, war is never pretty or clean, but I can't think of another war that has gone to such great lengths to preserve the lives of non-combatants. Why do you think Sa
Engineering and the Ultimate
Listen dude, swearing and trying to scramble for facts is not going to change the facts that your points were well debunked, and your idiocy exposed for all to see by Aim Here.
In short, you got owned.
Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
> "DC 9/11" on IMDB
If you mean "DC 9/11 Time of crisis?", I saw that on cable a little while ago. Not a whole lot to recommended it (apart from the striking resemblance of the actor who played GWB to the shrubbery himself)
> And I'm horrified to have a President who confuses America with God
It could be worse - he could confuse himself with God. Oh, wait - he *does* confuse himself with God.
Does the "W" in "GWB" stand for "We don't need no steeking Geneva convention"?
Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
Mostly true except that Louis VI probably never heard of America. Credits are due to Louis XVI :), a couple of centuries later.
Netflix
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Does anyone have a link for a high quality torrent?
I have a website. It's about Macs.
If you cost your work too cheap and refuse the loads of costumers that are requiring your services you are createing your ownd bankruptcy: all those eager costumers will not call you again, the few that hang on with you will not be enough to sustain your business proposition (because you are cahge too little) and you will go out of business.
You are forced to charge around what the market can bear, unless you find innovative procedures that allow you to provide good service for less money.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The US and the UK are illegal warmongers.
... Simpson... DUH!
Pacifists oppose unnecessary, illegal wars.
Batman, pacisfists are biased against the US and the UK! Holly Bat-logical-thinking!
Well, in the immortal words of tha great thinker, Homer
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
From Dictionary.com:
documentary
adj.
1. Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
2. Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
From Dictionary.com:
propaganda
n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
-------------------
I'm a Canadian, not some partisan American, so my interest is in truth, not proping up Bush.
Moore is pushing an agenda and is ANYTHING but objective. Facts are twisted to fit the premise, other facts that refute his claims are totaly ignored. The details are online, but if you had actually been paying attention to the world around you, you could tell it's a fraud on your own.
Anyone who buys into it is ignorant and/or gullable IMHO.
And it is the body of treaties that bound nation states.
The US is bound by the UN charter, which amongst many other things forbids to attack member states without provocation. Pray you tell US when did Iraq attack the US or any of its interests?
ALso nowhere in the resolutions that precluded this sorry conflict was any member state given permission to attcak and invade Iraq, thus any such action is illegal,
Quite simple honestly.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
For urging caution in a situation in which obvisouly there was no certainity about the major casus belli (WMDs)?
Honestly people like you are a bunch of cynical hypocrates. Sorry, only description that fits you.
The US and the UK had decided months before that they were going to invade Iraq, they put up with the UN in the hope that they would not have to go alone on their neo-colonial adventure and to make it easier to sell it back home to skeptical electorates (specially in the UK).
When they realized they did not have a majority in the security council (in spite of back stage arm twisting to all the countries oppossed to their actions) they went alone (yeah, we know El Salvador and South Korea are helping, shame Turkey, Russia, France, i.e. the countires that count, did noe involve themselves on this sensless adventurims).
Practicall since the war "ended" the UK and US, realizing the mess they have got themselves inot, have been desperetaly trying to enlist their regular allies for help, something they would have got had they understood the those "pointless resolutions" had a point to make.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I believe Bush's "October Surprise" will be saying he has caught Osama. Truth being he's known where Osama is all along.
Volunteer Mozilla developer, RPI Student.
The replace Nazi for whatever game is frankly old and tired, and shows only a complete lack of tools to carry on an informed discussion.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You punched it quite ferociously....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Well, there is.
The purpose is not to provide a thorough rebuttle to Michael Moore's movie. The purpose is not to disprove Moore's conclusions. The purpose is to show a thesis of their own: "Moore presents things that are false or misleading to some degree". It's an existential proof; they only need to make one of their "deceits" stick in order to prove it. What they hope is that you'll accept one instance of "deceit", and then make the logical fallacy of concluding that therefore, everything Michael Moore says is false. Thus the shotgun style that throws whatever nitpick or counter-claim by vested interest at Moore it can, even saying he supports terrorists and hates our troops because he called the insurgents in Iraq revolutionaries.
Of course that's only going to work on those who want to disbelieve everything in the movie. It's interesting the facts that he's unable to dispute. The central half of the movie -- the part where Bush misleads the public into supporting a war based on known-to-be-faulty intelligence that distracts from fighting the actual terrorist threat of al Qaeda while pouring taxpayer money into Haliburton -- is essentially uncontested. What I considered the take-home message of F911 is left unchallenged: What is commonly thought of as Bush's greatest strength, his execution of the War on Terror, is actually his greatest weakness.
The enemies of Democracy are
>>Can you cite an example of the producers of The Clinton Chronicles going after a Republican or a conservative on film like that? How about Ann Coulter? Rush? Sean Hannity? Ever hear those guys utter a single criticism of their own side?
There is tremendous conflict within the Republican party over Bush's big-government agenda so obviously you are uninformed or being deliberately misleading. Rush Limbaugh SEVERELY criticized Bush (and still does, when the topic comes up) for the outrageous growth of government under Bush's watch, his support for giving amnesty to illegal aliens, his signing of the so-called Campaign Finance Reform bill which places restrictions on political speech (the very thing the 1st Amendment was designed to protect), Bush's support of No Child Left Behind act which further intrudes on States Rights and expands the Federal Gov. beyond the scope of the Constitution, etc. Even though it's been years since these bills passed, I hear criticism from Sean Hannity if not daily, then at least weekly.
http://www.filesoup.com/forum/index.php?act=Attach &type=post&id=327369
sorry, i meant to be more clear. I have the shitty cam copy, and while they could watch that, i'd rather give them a good telesync copy instead.
The being able to pause it and take breaks was in regards to watching it in the house instead of the theatre, not the data format.
I think he's referring to http://anthropik.net/ununfahrenheit911
I haven't had time to read all of it, but most of it is complaining that Hitchens doesn't like Moore. I've printed it out so I'll read it later, and respond to it if I have the time.
Engineering and the Ultimate
"I'm farther to the left than 99% of the population-- have been for years and years."
/.er.
Uhuh? This is Slashdot dude, you should count yourself lucky if someone reads the goddamn article linked to at the top of the page before posting, let alone check out the opinions of the pinheads he or she's responding to. FYI, I did actually have a brief scan of your website. You know what led me to deduce you were some sort of right winger? Lets see:
Your use of the phrase 'so called "left"'
Your eagerness to side with the vast and organised corporate right-wing anti-Moore flak campaign - the largest right-wing attack on one non-politician since, what, Jane Fonda? Makes you a fellow-traveller for them pesky right-wingers at the very least.
An article on your website on how you were in two minds as to whether or not poor people should be allowed to breed.
Your link to 'The Libertarian case against IP' - I didn't read it but I thought it would be unlikely that you were one of the ten Americans on the planet who actually happens to know that 'libertarian' can sometimes mean some flavour of socialist or left-anarchist so I was playing the odds here a bit.
There was some articles on Public Schools and Unions on your site, both bugbears to right-wing folks. Unfortunately the Public Schools article had a conclusion but wasn't finished because you hadn't concocted enough evidence to arrive at your conclusion, and the Unions article was wibbling on about government-sanctioned programmers guilds or some other such fanciful nonsense so I switched off since it was clearly science-fiction.
The only evidence of left-wing-ness was the articles on the anarchist Emma Goldman - and she was a very individualistic, Nietsche-worshipping species of anarchist, with a personal dislike of poor people. I reckon that if, by some magic time travel device, Ayn Rand and Emma Goldman were ever in the same room together, they'd have gotten on like a house on fire. I'll admit it looked odd, but I figured that she was just some sort of left-wing mascot of yours.
That's why I reckoned you were, and still reckon you are, right-wing. I'd have gone back to your site too to make sure I wasn't hallucinating but you seem to have removed the content and replaced it with a nice picture, which is probably for the best, all things considered. I did fish out from the google cache that you were a card-carrying Libertarian Party member, though.
You seem to be using the term 'left-wing' in a manner inconsistent with the way every other person on the planet uses it. Yes, Libertarian capitalists are considered right-wing by most speakers of the English language. (One of the less obnoxious flavours of right-wing IMO, but still right-wing) Yes, I didn't investigate you overly thoroughly but I did a reasonable job given that you're just some random
"However, if you're what passes for the "left" these days, I might consider voting for right wingers just to piss you idiots off. "
Go ahead, it's not as if I live in the same country as you so it's not likely to affect me in the slightest, even in the unlikely event that your one vote manages to affect the outcome of that election, or the unlikely event that the politician, no matter what party he or she belongs to, will do anything other than carry out orders from Wall Street anyway.
"I wasn't criticizing Michael Moore for anything of the sort. I was criticizing your comparison."
Well first-off your criticism was utterly bogus, and secondly, contradicting person A saying statement S is, in most universes, a contradiction of statement S.
Otherwise you can get away with some really heinous arguments with that reasoning.
Witness:
Me: "Jeez, this road is shit"
You: "You're wrong! That's bullshit!"
Me: "Look, there's a pothole right there! And another one right there! If you think this road's good you drive!"
You: "I didn't say this road was good, I was criticising you for saying this road su
John Paul Jones, for whatever reasoned, joined all the other British Colonists (most of the people living in the colonies were British subjects) in their struggle for revolution by enlisting in the United States Navy.
During the American Revolution, British warships were captured off the coast of Scotland and England, and the American Navy took the Bahamas right out from under the noses of the British.
The whole point of the battle for Yorktown virginia, and the battle at sea off the coast of Virginia was about REestablishing British supremacy at sea. Cornwallis was pushed back into Yorktown by Lafayette, Brig. General Wayne, and von Stueben (and their armies, of course).
It's certainly helpful that the French did the significant portion of the work defeating the British fleets off of Virginia, but American Naval vessels were involved. More than half of the troops that besieged Yorktown were American troops.
When I said "civilized warfare", I was referring to the practice of 'gentleman' soldiers who marched in columns and fought in lines. The British were not known for attacking officers. While most of the battles were fought between opposing conventional forces, guerilla units played a very significant part in the war.
Unconventional warfare has been overshadowed by the romantic visions given to us of Washington and his armies dominating British troops (with the help of Rochambeau.
The war on land and the war at sea, while both being brought to an end by large conventional forces, were won by the smaller unceonventional forces. A final point, the French never really wanted to help the colonists, they just wanted revenge against the British. They got that, and we go our independence.
Speckpot?
You basically just agreed that there would have been no Soviets for the Germans to bother fighting if it weren't for the contributions of the Americans.
They certainly had a hand in it, but helped feed that hand, clothe that hand, arm that hand, and send that hand into battle. Heh.
Speckpot?
Shouldn't you be off trolling people's posts anonymously?
Oops--you've been had.
If by "well-debunked" you are referring to the UnUnFarenheit 9/11 article, you are thinkingly-deficient. I just finished reading the whole thing, and it seems to support Hitchins near 100% on a factual basis. Most of the article is in fact hand-waving (no, that's not what the film really is trying to say - nevertheless that is what the film is actually saying) or just name-calling.
What's really funny is the Saudi flights out of the US. Jason actually agrees that Moore was responsible and took responsibility. However, he tried to couch it as he took responsibility for the actions in a general sense, although he had said, specifically, before the 9/11 commission, that the decision went NO HIGHER than him. So, while Jason wants to make him out to be magnanimous, the fact still remains that Moore is fooling you!
Apparently, it is also okay for Moore to mislead people about what Saddam had done leading up to the war. Jason accuses Hitchens of lying. What was the lie? That Hitchens said that Moore said that "Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened any American". The actual quote according to Jason should be "Iraq had never attacked America, never threatened America, and had never murdered an American". Jason considers the difference between those quotes to be LYING. Good Gosh! Then, although he admits that they are factually incorrect, he says it's okay for Moore to do it, because he's playing the same role he believes the GWB is playing in the reasons for going to war. Not that he has actually proven GWB is lying, but the mere suspicion apparently gives Moore adequate backing for lying himself.
The rest is basically Jason defending the movie by saying that "it only raises questions - it doesn't give answers" which is a complete load of BS. It only raises questions on one side, which is the same as giving answers. The fact that it does so deceptively is even worse.
Anyway, the article was really sad, and actually venerated Hitchens because it agreed with him on pretty much every factual point.
If you want to read the article yourself, it's here:
http://anthropik.net/ununfahrenheit911
If you were referring to another debunking, please provide the link.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Think you will find a perfectly good answer to your questions, if you would bother to read some of the previous posts again=)
Since several sections of the film are simply Bush speaking on camera, here's an idea: get a few like-minded buddies and go cheering for Bush at a showing of Fahrenheit 9/11! Then, as the crowd laughs you simply boo, laugh when the crowd cries and so on. All while having some great fun, too! :)
Smart!
Everybody (on the right) wants to call Moore a communist so..... give'm a reason.
But seriously this seems to me really to be more like a Grateful Dead way of doing things. Moore has made all he is going to so get the message as far and wide as you can.
And then if the stormtroopers get the theaters shut down and block/edit the DVD release the movie is still out there.
Download the movie all you damn well want!
... half a dozen border disputes ongoing right now where the US is trying to take land from Canada, As we speak, the USA has given 'permission' to several US oil companies to explore in Canadian Arctic waters for oil as if YOU BASTARDS have any right to do that. ... softwood lumber, .. salmon, wheat, energy (HEY california, the people of British Columbia are still waiting to be paid for all that energy you 'bought' from us during those brownouts! you had a choice, you didnt have to buy it, now pay up bastards!)
Its not stealing because its a Canadian company distributing the movie.
Americans have never had a problem stealing from Canada so why should any of you bastards start caring now?
hmm like lets see
could go on for hours about it.
So why do you care about stealing the movie? I bet you all are just trying to repress the truth of Moore's movie.
dumbass americans.
That a bunch of liberals are out craving Bush blood and are lapping up inaccurate conspiracy garbage produced by someone with as little credibility as Moore is not surprising--that doesn't make a single thing he said accurate, though, just popular.
Face it, everyone is biased. Your "information" and views are just as biased as anyone. You don't really know. You believe.
Nothing has come up in the mainstream media to justisfy the war. In Canada, the general view is that initially we were afraid that it would piss off the U.S. and interfer with trade. A year later, none of the allegations of Bush have shown anything to be going on. We are now very glad to have stayed out.
Only a blind believer would cling to the view that you are there for promotion of democracy. There are a hell of a lot of dictators out there that could be deposed with less trouble. Why Iraq? Why stick it out and have so many U.S. solders and civilians die in the war? It isn't just for democracy. If you believe that, you are dilusional.
Name one other country that has been invaded for the purpose of forming a democracy. It is not a general policy of the U.S. It is merely the last remaining excuse for why they are still in Iraq, aside from the truth, which is to secure access to the second largest oil reserves in the world!
The fight between the western powers and the Middle Eastern zealots is an equally blind and equally stupid one. There is no way you could agree with that statement. You would need to be able to step outside of your nation, your culture, and the constant media brainwashing to realize it. It likely won't happen. Not right now. But perhaps in 10 years you will consider other ideas and mature.
But if it could happen, the first step would be to ask yourself what is the source of hate? Why are people willing to give up their lives to harm the U.S.A.? If you don't understand that, you don't understand the true cause of the beginning of the hostility on U.S. soil. It did not begin in 2001. It may be partially fueled by religion, but religion is not the spark!
Americans: please get satellite dishes and watch CBC newsworld or BBC newsworld. You need information that the internal media controls too much.
Bush is sending seven aircraft carriers to the Taiwan Straits - allegedly to intimidate China from threatening Taiwan - but in reality to attack North Korea. A flight of stealth bombers has been sent to the area as well - obviously to hit the NK nuclear facilities. The North Koreans reported over 150 spy plane overflights in the last month or so. This conveniently allows Bush to pull all US troops out of Iraq without having to explain why.
It also provides a nice "October Surprise" as the public will not unseat Bush in the elections during a "hot war". (Assuming the elections are held at all after the North is allowed by the CIA to detonate a nuke on US soil and we go to martial law).
This has been in the works for the last year at least - I predicted it last year as soon as the US announced it would move all the "tripwire" troops at the DMZ south of Seoul - so they don't all get killed in the first three hours of the North's retaliation.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
You got it.
Especially since CNN reported a Pentagon estimate that the US would lose 50,000 US casualties in Korea in the first ninety days of a war there.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
"Face it, everyone is biased. Your "information" and views are just as biased as anyone. You don't really know. You believe."
I didn't claim otherwise. I simply claimed that the idea that there were no other possible reasons than the ones stated was completely bogus. There are numerous reasons, many stated by the President himself, many of them confirmed.
"Only a blind believer would cling to the view that you are there for promotion of democracy. There are a hell of a lot of dictators out there that could be deposed with less trouble. Why Iraq? Why stick it out and have so many U.S. solders and civilians die in the war? It isn't just for democracy. If you believe that, you are dilusional."
You're right, it isn't _just_ for democracy. There were four issues I listed, plus I believe the president listed more. The only ones of them that was sufficient by itself were WMD and the fact that we had intelligence that they were going to attack us. In addition, there is evidence that they had attacked us before, the Clintons just covered it up because they didn't want an all-out war.
"Name one other country that has been invaded for the purpose of forming a democracy."
Your insistence that there was a single purpose, and only this purpose, for invading Iraq could be the source of your confusion.
"Americans: please get satellite dishes and watch CBC newsworld or BBC newsworld. You need information that the internal media controls too much."
You're right. Our new media is way too much anti-war and anti-Bush.
I'm not a big fan of the president, but the amount of bashing he gets is just idiotic, especially since most of his criticism is mere idle speculation.
Engineering and the Ultimate
While this was intended to be funny, there is some seriousness here. If I were Moore, and my goal was widest possible distribution, not most money made, putting it up for P2P download is a great idea.
You know that is my complaint with the Passion. Moore believes in something so much he is willing to give it away to convert the non-believers.
Mel Gibson makes a movie about something he 'passionately' believes in, but he wants to milk it for all it for all the money it is worth.
ah the root of all evil....
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
Screw Blockbuster, they're doomed anyway. Where I live you can get just about any movie blockbuster carries 'on demand' for $3.50, and no late charges. If you've got stock in Blockbuster SELL IT NOW, the genie's out of the bottle.
All your base are belong to us!
In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
while this might be faked, it looks pretty clean to me /too lazy to sign on right now
I don't agree with this.
I actually think it's the other way around. Right now, anyway, you need the theatrical release in order to drive the downloads on the P2P site. Since it released big and had lots of press, there's a lot more people looking to download a copy on the P2P networks.
I base this partly on the observation that many, many movies on supranova have one or two people at most on them. Only the ones made popular in other mediums have a large number of downloaders.
If Moore wants the widest possible distribution, he should keep doing what he's doing. Let the movie run its course. And he should occasionally try to drive it back into the news headlines by making incendiary (to the mass-media) comments about pirating. In a couple of weeks, hopefully he can drum up a controversy about whether some tid-bit in the movie was factual or not. A few weeks after, he might release a little teaser in the form of a "where are they now" highlighting some of the people he showed in the movie.
The most important thing though, is that the movie needs to keep coming up in the mass media in order to keep more eyes on the ball.
1. 2.
Moore takes his point and is willing to make any distortion and misrepresentation he can to try and brainwash viewers into thinking like him. When you have newsweek running an article on how unfair the film is, you know something's wrong. Moore claims for instance that the Saudi Royals gave $1.4 billion to the Bush family. Forget for a minute that the Saudi Royals are also fighting terrorism... $1.18 billion of that is from contracts awarded to BDM, a former member of the Carlyle Group of which the senior Bush was on the advisory board. Moore would have you think that the Carlyle group is a wholely owned subsidiary of some mythic "Bush Enterprises" and that the money went straight into their bank accounts. It just so happens that those contracts were awarded to BDM in the early 90's and Bush wasn't placed on the advisory board of the Carlyle group until 1998, five months after it had sold BDM. Not to mention that it lost money on the deal so it was bad all around. Being on the advisory board for a company is a lot different than being the owner. Along with Bush, many democrats and members of Clinton's administration are also involved with that company.
What saddens and amazes me is all of the people that come away from the film thinking it is entirely true and quoting it. It's every bit as bad as Rush Limbaugh's "ditto-heads" that agree with everything he has to say. I wish US schools would teach more critical thinking instead of fact memorization. We should all be skeptics especially when we are being fed information by someone that doesn't even try to hide their agenda.
If you come and get to know real English people, you might think differently of us." ;) I ran into quite a few people that thought life in the U.S. was just like T.V. I also heard my fair share of racist steriotypes. However, I understood that stupidity inhabits any country and learned to deal with it.
I lived in London for 2 years. I do think differently of you
My comment was a generalization. However, the average american doesn't realize the rivalry that the English and French have. My co-workers and random punters in England would make comments about the French. Some of it was just good natured teasing. The best way I can explain it to an American is to compare the situation to an American University football rivalry.
You are spot on that every country has it's good and bad. Most Americans have never even met a French person. I am pretty intollerant of the ignorant French bashing that occurs in the U.S..
No weapons of mass destruction have been found. You are confused with what was said before the war and what was discovered afterward. A single artillary shell turning up with some gas in it and unintentionaly blown up as a road side bomb does not constitute anything specially different than what their neighbour Iran has.
We know Saddam was a maverick leader and ruthless dictator, but there are plenty of those around. In most cases, these types of leaders are deposed by their own people in relatively bloodless coups or other change of government, given time. I notice for example that Libya has had some change of heart. Iran will also be changing, given time. Jordan has changed a great deal towards a more moderate and U.S. friendly Arab state.
The cost of the Iraqi operation is enormous. The only reason for it is that the potential monetary and secure access to oil gain out of it is also enormous. If you deny that you have your head in the neocon clouds.
The real judge of the worthiness of the U.S. in invading and occupying Iraq are the people of Iraq. While many foreigners have entered the country and made it into a religious issue, there are many moderate citizens in the street that have been interviewed and all of them want the U.S. out ASAP.
Why? Because if there was a gang in New York City killing people, the mayor would not call on the air force to bomb their hideout, nor would the army go door-to-door with crowbars busting open every home searching for them and invading the homes of peaceful citizens. Yet these are the actions the U.S. forces use in Iraq to deal with the insurgents. Ever action like this costs the U.S. the public support of Iraqis, and they have been there long enough to loose lots of it.
"A single artillary shell turning up with some gas in it and unintentionaly blown up as a road side bomb does not constitute anything specially different than what their neighbour Iran has."
This isn't about "who has more". The question was, "did they have any", and "if not, where did it go". We know at one point they had some, because we (stupidly) sold it to them. None of their weapons declarations mention what happened to even the stuff we sold them.
"I notice for example that Libya has had some change of heart."
Why do you think that is? Because they found out that the terror game was no longer worth being played.
"The cost of the Iraqi operation is enormous. The only reason for it is that the potential monetary and secure access to oil gain out of it is also enormous. If you deny that you have your head in the neocon clouds."
If we just wanted oil, why didn't we just let Saddam invade Kuwait in exchange for access to the oil. Or why didn't we just participate in the "oil for food" program/scandal along with the rest of the world?
Again, you are completely ignoring the other causes for war, like the fact that Putin gave us specific intelligence about a Saddam terrorist plot in the US, and the fact that Hussain Al-Husseiny (I think that's how it's spelled) - a republican guard member let in the US under the Clintons - has been assisting other terrorists behind-the-scenes in the US (he worked at Logan International airport, after helping out the two white boys blow up OKC - Clinton didn't want to go to war, so he just dropped that part of the investigation).
"there are many moderate citizens in the street that have been interviewed and all of them want the U.S. out ASAP."
But many of those same people are glad we came.
"Ever action like this costs the U.S. the public support of Iraqis, and they have been there long enough to loose lots of it."
Interestingly, Muslim clerics in Iraq have authorized the US to _increase_ the amount of force we use against the insurgents. We did not fire into cemetaries or mosques for a long time, but finally the clerics were tired of these insurgents, and gave the US permission to fire back even if the insurgents were in a mosque or cemetary.
Make no mistake, Iraq was a direct threat to us. Our intelligence obviously overstated some of this, but nevertheless, the evidence is pretty clear.
Check out the book "The Third Terrorist". This was in the making long before 9/11 and documents some of Saddam's actions inside the US that were covered up because the Clintons didn't have the guts to persue open war when it was called for.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Saddam was toppled over a year ago. The U.S. is still there. If this was just about foiling terror plots the job was done long ago. Clinton has been gone for awhile too. If there was some problem with bad guys coming into the U.S., Bush has the ability to do something about it. The only remaining reason for the new found ability to absorb the hostile aggression and take the continuous loss of life (which wasn't present in Lebanon under Reagan, or more recently in Saudi Arabia or in Somalia) is oil gains.
- 20 04May8?language=printer
q _e lection_040621.html
Why didn't they allow Saddam to spread into Kuwait? That is a ridiculous question. Because then the U.S. would be under the thumbs of two Saudi Arabia sized oil states - one of them rogue. You use the phrase "in exchange for access to the oil" - that sums it up - the U.S. does not want to have to bargain with someone like Saddam growing power.
This is about global political and military power, and ensuring the U.S. (and the west in general) has access to oil for its military and industry.
I have a real source of information for you to see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11227
In there you can see this statement:
A recent USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that a majority of Iraqis want the United States to leave immediately.
This article is dated May 9th this year. If you want a view of what is happening in Iraq from a U.S. source that actually cares what solders and civilians say in Iraq, check out the Washington Post. It has alot of detail that contradicts Bush's tall tale about a handful of thugs.
Here is another interesting story, from prior to Moore's movie coming out:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Polls/ira
'For the first time in ABC News/Washington Post polls, more than half of Americans, 52 percent, say the Iraq war was not worth fighting. Seven in 10 call U.S. casualties there "unacceptable," a new high.'
Is this what you call the new left media or whatever your phrase was? I think it is called democracy.
Why has this changed? Because people figure there is little point going where you are not wanted, and perhaps even hated by a huge chunk of the local population. Why does this not matter to Bush, who continues to refer to a small minority of foreigners and thugs causing the problems? Because the Bush administration value oil more than the lives of a few hundred Americans who mostly come from the lower class.
If the U.S. is really interested in foiling future terrorist plots, they have done everything to achieve the opposite. As we can see in Israel today, fighting it does not extinguish it, but only cues the next generation of people to continue on with the effort. After a few generations of that, I don't know what it takes to stop it - it seems like a perpetual machine of avenging one's grandparents death or whatever.
Hate does not come out of thin air.
"Saddam was toppled over a year ago. The U.S. is still there. If this was just about foiling terror plots the job was done long ago."
Yes, and now we're working on setting up a good government in Iraq. They are now sovereign, and, if they wish, can kick us out at any time. They are not because it _does_ take time to rebuild a country after a war. Not doing so would be utter foolishness.
"Is this what you call the new left media or whatever your phrase was? I think it is called democracy."
We're actually a democratic republic. Meaning that the leaders should not blindly follow polls. Instead, we periodically elect people to represent us.
That aside, I believe that the reason the polls are so bad is because of the selective coverage of Iraq. Most people don't know about the good going on there. Most people don't know about the threats we've been able to stop by being there. Lybia giving up its nukes got what, two days of coverage? Compare that with Abu Ghrabe, which still gets coverage.
"If the U.S. is really interested in foiling future terrorist plots, they have done everything to achieve the opposite."
Actually, we've done quite well in that area. We've received quite a bit of good intel that has helped us prevent terrorist plots. In addition, we are fighting the war over there, and not over here.
I think the constant "oil mantra" would be funny if it were not so sad. I think it should be discussed, but this idea that it is the "only remaining reason" for what is happening is just intellectual dishonesty and self-deception.
Engineering and the Ultimate
So, if he were really interested, he'd upload a copy from the original sources.
Oh yeah, so that, instead of him spending a lot of money to make a movie that people would pay to see in an attempt to make a living and funding for his next movie, while people who can't see it can just download it, instead he should spend a good deal more money on the bandwidth to shoot DVD images out to anyone who wants it, for free, including people who would soak up bandwidth just to increase his costs.
Maybe he could seed his own torrent, but honestly, mostly its geeks (like me) who know about bittorrent so far. In any case, it's a world of difference between saying it's okay for people to give away copies of your hard-made movie, and actually giving them away. Your distributor would probably have something to say about that, in fact.
Why don't you argue with your own Senate: Iraq war based on faulty intelligence: U.S. Senate
I don't disagree with the Senate findings. They don't contradict anything I've said. Some people (like the person writing that article) don't take into account the actual scope of the hearings, and lead them to wrong conclusions.
Remember when the papers had the headlines "9/11 commission finds no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda"? Well, the 9/11 commission was right, but the papers were wrong. In fact, the 9/11 commission specifically found links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. It just didn't find them for September 11th. If you remember correctly, the war on terrorism is not just a war on those who committed the 9/11 attacks. It is a war on international terrorism itself, with Al-Qaeda being the primary focus.
Engineering and the Ultimate
By the same logic of yours, where quantity never has a bearing (one weapon with gas found, one possible meeting between Al Qaeda and Iraqi Intelligence), if we found one ant in your house, it could be classified as an ant hill and filled with pesticides.
Or, to flip around, the United States could attack itself for harbouring dozens of terrorists within it's borders, and for Bush's friendships with the bin Laden family and members of the Taliban leadership visiting officials in Texas. The links can be drawn in many places, but the real question is intentionality. Placing a person in a location does not create any real information on what was actually discussed, or whether there was an alliance, etc. The only people in the world who believe there is a connection are a few million deluded Americans.
I'm sort of puzzled by getting modded to "flamebait" on this. or perhaps honored, or something. Was what happened in Florida in 2000 good? Bad? Ugly?
Did a pack of Evil Republican Hackers descend upon Poor Hapless Inspector Lopez while the duck squeezing, tree hugging Green Party was out sampling organic, union label, hallucinogenic mushrooms with their same sex (possibly transgendered) companion (soul mate).
Just wondering.
"The only people in the world who believe there is a connection are a few million deluded Americans."
And congress.
And there's the fact that John Doe #2 from the OKC bombing happened to be Hussein Al-Hussany - a member of Iraq's Republican Guard living in the US. After the OKC bombing he went to... Logan National Airport. This is the subject of the next round of congressional investigations.
You should read the book "The Third Terrorist", which details some of the middle-eastern involvement in the OKC bombing, and how Clinton ordered the connection be ignored, and links it to Iraq -- all of this information was put together BEFORE 9/11.
Engineering and the Ultimate
You know you are losing your debate when all you have to pull out is some lame conspiracy theory.
I'm not buying anyone's book to look into this. I've just researched it using the Internet, and it holds as much water as many other hysterical movements in the U.S.
If you look at the history of public hysteria in the U.S., you will find lots of examples of eye witnesses materializing, claiming they saw something that fits some conspiracy pattern. From needles in Pepsi cans (one bizzare and confusing accident in a family that had a diabetic, copycated across the nation), to missiles shooting down a 747 passenger airline in New York, you can find eye witnesses that will back up anything that makes the story more sinister than it first appears. Even on 9/11, people across the U.S. were trying to hurt or kill anyone with dark skin and something on their head - some of whom were Sikh's not Arabs. At that point, no one was really sure who was behind the attacks, and like Oklahoma, and the anthax in the mail events, the public was ready to say the Arabs before really knowing the facts.
I personally saw an airplane crash at an airshow, and eye witnesses on the radio said that the plane exploded before it hit the water. Others said seagulls were sucked into the engine. What really happened was that the airplane stalled during a 90 degree turn while only a few hundred feet over the water. When it hit the water, there was a gap between the sound of the plane hitting, and the sight of the plane hitting. Because this never happens in movies, people reversed the order of events and thought the sound preceded the sight, as if there was an explosion prior to the crash. In reality there was a loud clap sound after we saw the plane hit the water. As for the seagulls, several home movie videos were being shot of the airshow and none of those sent into and shown by TV stations showed any bird sucked into the engine or even nearby.
My point in bringing this up, is that people are often poor eye witnesses, and will say things that fit a pattern of expectations rather than the raw data that may not support it. In the case of Oklahoma bombing, people will prefer to believe there was an Arab incentive, and that it wasn't a purely American white boy that was behind it.
Actually, the lamest arguments are those that refuse to believe any eyewitness account, because obviously their explanation is much better than anyone who saw what happened.
The interesting thing about OKC is that congress had received in the months previous to OKC information about a terrorist attack in the heartland by middle easterners being led by "lily whites" (white guys to hang the blame on).
In addition, Richard Clark said in the 9/11 hearings that he certainly hasn't ruled out that Nichols learned bomb-making from Ramzi Youssef while they were both in the Phillipines.
In addition, Hussain Al-Hussany sued the author of the book for libel. The case was decided against him because the judge says that all of her material was either factual or opinion - nothing counterfactual in there.
Oh yeah, and there's a security video, too.
Instead of putting money down for the book, why not just check it out of your local library?
Engineering and the Ultimate
I can't imagine a logical reason for protecting an Arab involved in bombing Oklahoma (assuming such a thing was real) - and for dozens of people involved in such a cover up conspiracy to be interested in holding on it, especially in light of 9/11. It doesn't add up.