Slashdot Mirror
Celsius 41.11: A Rebuttal to Michael Moore
deezl writes "Michael Moore released a controversial movie revealing 'facts' about the Bush Presidency. A new rebuttal has just been released called Celsius 41.11. I would think that time sensitive political commentaries would be available for download to ensure the widest possible distribution base. If documentary makers are so interested in getting their message out and arguments across, why not encourage free BitTorrent type distribution for their movies?"
There are no facts here or there or anywhere. There is only Zoul.
Seriously, neither film is unbiased so those with an interest in a particular one pretty much know which way they are voting.
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
Indeed, and he pushed to get it aired on network TV, at the cost of giving up some awards.
This Celsius 41.11 seems to be solely trying to make money off the success of F9/11. If they want to "get the facts straight," they wouldn't force us to pay $20 for them.
And what the hell does C44.11 mean, anyways? The daily temperature in Iraq? . I mean, 41.11C is 105.998F, they could have at least had it convert properly. I bet Ray Bradbury is really rolling in his err... near grave)
Wow. Only eight comments so far. I'm actually kind of sad about that. Do you guys have any idea what this thread would look like already on Fark?
I wonder how many people (like me) are reluctant to post in Political threads because we will undoubtedly lose karma in the process. There are only so many (-1) flamebait posts I want to see next to my name, you know?
--
shut up barjockey, you cock
Micheal Moore had to walk a thin line concerning net distribution of the movie. If he had openly endorsed it, it would have been disqualified from the Academy Awards. By merely tolerating it, he was able to keep the Oscar hopes alive.
Granted, the Oscar may not seem like much, but it is important to the producers and the financial backers.
Whine if they charge, whine if they don't. Can't make everyone happy. You think they should give the DVD away, this post complains that they do show the documentary for free.
They must be bad, they are trying to make money off of it. No must be bad, they are giving it away.
-BrentRegardless of any liberties taken by Michael Moore the point of the documentary is valid. Bush started a war for profit not liberty.
In the end people who support the war should go fight the damn thing. I'm tired of all these stupid fucking republicans in my state backing bush and like him, saying the war is good but not participating themselves.
It's high time we let people vote for or against war. All those for the war go into the draft pool, all those against do not. I doubt people would be so pro-war if their ass were on the front line.
Note: 1/2 my family is in the military, both my grandparents have purple hearts from WWII and I have 3 uncles who fought in Vietnam. Of course my Father (a Republican) is pro-war, however he (like our schmuck in chief) avoided Vietnam for himself. Hypocrites amaze me.
Let me explain. Once you look past Mr. Moore's biased you'll see that the film is doing nothing more than asking the question that should have been asked by the media we already have in place. The media failed to do so, thus we have Moore's film filling in where they came up short. Does he get somethings wrong? Your goddamn right he does, but it doesn't mean we should ignore him completely.
Now the same can be said for the rebuttal. Moore's obviously put his own spin on things (as he should) after all, all he's doing is connecting dots to make a point. He most likely went overboard with some of his assumptions. Now I haven't seen the new movie yet, but lets hope it fills the holes in Moore's movie and is not just an outright attack on Moore (I hope this makes my own biased completely clear).
This shouldn't have to be said, but everyone should watch both movies and then make up their own minds.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
All the American service men and women I know (air force, marine, and army) signed up to serve in order to defend the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
They did not sign up to invade other nations with no international support, tenuous intelligence, and no clear exit strategy.
Afghanistan, OEF - the right war.
Iraq, OIF - the wrong war.
The fact you got a +2:Insightful for this makes me cringe.
Bush started a war for profit not liberty.
And I will wholeheartedly agree with you, when you or people like you provide a shred of grounded evidence supporting your point.
It's high time we let people vote for or against war.
We do, like we vote for most everything else, through our elected officials. I believe it was unanimous.
--trb
I knew a lot of people too closed minded to go out and see Fahrenheit 9/11. Hopefully, this movie's hype will allow them to take a look behind the curtain and see how ignorant they are of politics, war, and the economy. Whatever the motive, I think watching some kid get his fingers chopped off has to make you stop and think about the world around you.
---
We all know that BOTH sides spin the truth and they both just want to win.
---
Which, of course, is what the side telling the lies wants you to believe.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
There's doing nothing. (What happened)
There's running around in a panic. (What is suggested here as THE alternative.)
Then again...
I got the official 9/11 report for my birthday. I haven't had time to read it, but I have cracked it a little. I've also read another minute-by-minute account of the morning of 9/11, backed up by source links.
The *real* crime of 9/11 had nothing to do with Bush, but rather with the link between the FAA and NORAD. FAA rules state that NORAD is to be notified immediately of all hijackings. There was a delay of nearly 1/2 hour between recognition of the first hijacking and NORAD acknowledgement. (This is from the other report, I need to verify this in the 9/11 report.)
Next, in that first hour or so after the hijacking there appeared to be mass confusion between ATC and NORAD. There was uncertainty about how many hijackings, who should be looking where for what, etc. (Still from the other report.)
Finally, within the space of a few minutes, the first jet hit the WTC, and the other 3 jets were hijacked. (From the 9/11 report) We were a half-hour into the confusion, with another half-hour to go, by which time the whole thing was pretty well over, except for the shouting.
I don't know if anything could have been done to stop the first jet, after the hijacking. Ignoring the intelligence leading up to 9/11 is a different issue. But about the time one jet has crashed into a building and 3 more are known hijacked, we should have been into Full Response, instead of confusion.
What would I want Bush to have done? Put someone in Charge. He was probably too far out of the loop, in Florida. But he should have put someone in Charge to tie together ATC, NORAD, and whoever else was appropriate.
But then again, the famed 7-minute pause was *after* the 2nd jet crashed into the WTC. So even had he calmly stood up, excused himself, and taken/delegated control, it was too late. There's some question about whether or not he heard about the first jet hitting the WTC prior to entering the school. There's some question about those in the White House delaying feeding him info for 10 minutes or so. The findings: "A Failure of Imagination." Whatever happened to Truman's, "The Buck Stops Here?"
The machine called "The US Government" had multiple failures that day. In fact, the only correct, effective response was by passengers. Grounding all air traffic was correct, and might have been effective had there been more jets-as-missiles planned, and did serve to restart air traffic with better security.
Back to Moore... It's so fun to tear down 1-800 vs 1-888, and Enlisted vs Officers, etc that we just lose track of the other points where the facts were less tilted and more clear. The less disputed facts raise perhaps the more important questions, yet recieve little focus.
But then that's been the way of this whole election cycle.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Contrary to your sig, Bush never claimed Saddam was linked to 9/11.
He and his administration just insinuated it at every possible opportunity.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Yeah, those evil Dems are at it again! Not only do we want permission to pirate his film, but we want him to do the work for us! LAZY FAT BASTARD! Not willing to steal our movies for us!
(sheesh)
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
"you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror" - GWB
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Okay, I wasn't impressed at all with F9/11. I felt that it was a selective set of facts loosely assembled in such a way as to make the Bush administration look bad. It was almost purely a propaganda piece.
Celsius whateveritis looks like an attempt to do the same thing in reverse. They've selectively assembled a bunch of facts to make President Bush look good and to make Michael Moore look bad. So basically, another propaganda piece trying to rebut the first.
My recommendation is to do your homework, find your own facts, and draw your own conclusions. Don't listen to a bunch of blowhard filmmakers about who you should vote for.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Merriam-Webster defines terrorism as "the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion". They define "terror" as "violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands". Would this adequately describe the intent of the United States government in the Middle East?
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
Here you go:
From the State of the Union 2003, straight from the horse's mouth.
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
So, let me get this straight. Bush didn't actually say there was a 9/11 link, but he implied it by making the accurate statement that Iraq harbored Al Qaeda, and therefore, because Iraq only harbored and supported Al Qaeda, but actually didn't give the order for 9/11, that Bush lied by stating Iraq harbored Al Qaeda and therefore misled us into war against Iraq.
As The Dread Pirate Roberts would say: Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
LOL! And you seem to be ignoring the fact that Kerry wasn't the bloody President at that moment. There *was* nothing for him to do but do what the rest of us did and stare at the TV in disbelief. But hey, a free, cheap shot at Kerry is worth it every time to you guys, and the truth be damned, right?