Fahrenheit 911 download rmvb

The kind that originally made this country a great place. REAL capitalism isn't about making the most sales and dominating the market. It's about providing a good or service that really has value and keeping your customer satisfied. The criminal activites that masquerade as "capitalism" these days have made a travesty of the United States. It sickens me that so many people out there believe that they are part of something good when they support the purveyors of these activities.

It also does my heart good to see that there are plenty of people who are, perhaps, starting to become a little more aware of how this country is being ruined. Score: 4 , Insightful. MOD UP! Good businesspeople can take pride in their operations, knowing that they provide a valuable service to their communities at a reasonable price. Running a business should be an honorable profession. If it isn't, you are doing something wrong. Re:Let's call Leftism for what it is Score: 4 , Insightful.

Have you ever been happy? You're a fucking idiot. Rent it? Not at Blockbuster Blockbuster boycotting Michael Moore [sisterstreet. I've been waiting for Bowling for Columbine to come out at Blockbuster's.

They had said that it would be available this month. I called yesterday and was told that they wouldn't be carrying it. When I asked if it was because of the controversy surrounding Moore, they said yes and that they were going to see.. I am pissed. Blockbuster is a huge distributor.

I'm going to see if I can send an email of complaint to someone at Blockbuster's. Re:Let's call Leftism for what it is Score: 4 , Interesting. This is very similiar to the right wing's "trust" in "free market" forces to benevolently serve the best interets of man with minimal, if any regulation. It's also very similar to the right's clinging to "trickle down" economic policies, that have zero evidence of working better than the more standard alternatives.

It's ALSO very similiar to the right's belief that you can leglislate morality without causing more harm than you solve. Keep in mind that charging for your time can have two goals : 1 Income 2 Moderation If I'm a busy person and have only a limited number of time to spend visiting special events, I'll set the price at the point where the demand for that price point will not exceed the time I have available for that activity. This is similar to computer geeks charging people to go fix their computers once they have a real job.

It's not to make more money, it's so you don't spend every single hour of your free time fixing other people's computer, and only the people that REALLY needs your help will take your time. 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. For when it is, victory is not possible. The war is not meant to be won, but it is meant to be continuous. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. George Orwell's There, there mon ami. We're not all Republicans. Re:Torrent Score: 5 , Informative. Better yet, where the torrent tools?

My favorite is Azureus [sourceforge. Original client--no bells or whistles [bitconjurer. Re:Non, merci Score: 4 , Insightful. They claim that the virus is indeed harmless. Most of them think AIDS is also not sexually transmitted; it probably has toxic causes. People die because they are poisoned to death by toxic antiviral drugs. 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. Extreme left? You lefties have a strange definition of patriotism. Patriotism: Love of and devotion to one's country. Now, where does Moore say he doesn't like his country?

I can only see him objecting to his country's government. Maybe he go as far as to make documentaries about it because he cares so much for his country and that it's properly run? That's what this is all about. You should go watch the movie, or at least the part where it showed Bush sitting around looking like a monkey for 7 minutes. He is not actually reading the book with the children, he is glancing at it and looking around nervously for 7 minutes trying to decide what to do.

Re:Stop pinning this on Bush. You didn't even mention the security aspect of his sitting there for 7 minutes. The point is, it was stupid to sit there for 7 minutes after the second plane hit, ANY way you look at it. But then, I guess any level of discussion of our government in negative terms is only ok if it involves a democratic president getting a blowjob, right?

Certainly we have no room to be negative when we're at war, even if we can't generate one solid reason as to why we are at war and what good we are actually doing in a country that never threatened us directly, while giving up on and letting run free a terrorist that has attacked us several times including the largest foreign attack on our soil ever, who happens to be related to the business partners of our president.

Obviously our priorities are out of whack for questioning that. What ARE we thinking? Your definition of patriotism is actually nationalism, there is a very big difference. Nationalism is the beleif that your nation is right above all others, patriotism is the love for your country expressed. Moore expresses the love for his country in a very meaninfull way.

He created a documentary which describes what he thinks is wrong with the government in an effort to change that. You can find very few people, you included, who have gone to the efforts that Micheal Moore has to bring what he beleives is injustice to light. In fact, that by definition makes Micheal Moore one of the most patriotic people in America. What you beleive is Nationalism, which is patriotism expressed as "My nation is right.

Many people tend to forget that the most patriotic men, the founders of our country, railed heartily against our government for many of the same reasons. The only difference between their actions and the actions of Micheal Moore, is that M. Moore exists in a system where the Govt. The great thing about America is that we do not need revolutions for this kind of thing. So, saying that Micheal Moore is a patriot, and that he loves America is a patently true statement, by any logical definition.

But the definitions of each would put error to your belief. Annendum: I use the main definition of patriotism which is the expression of love for ones country. And a common second definition of Nationalism which is the beleif that your country is right above all others. Take it up with Teddy Score: 5 , Insightful.

It does not mean to stand by the President. 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. Re:Not a documentary Score: 5 , Insightful. The reverse is also true. Saying it is not a documentary does not make it so.

If you have evidence that something in the film is untrue, then please be specific. People hear the word "documentary" and they can only think of National Geographic and the Discovery Channel.

Every big newspaper has a page of opinion columns. The goal of that page is to present well thought out arguments from different viewpoints. It's still a documentary.

Spork writes: on Sunday July 04, AM Saying it's not a documentary does not make its content false. Not if you say it a thousand times or more. Re:Not a documentary Score: 5 , Interesting. Documentaries certainly have points of view, and they always have. Argument by assertion. If you deny that, you don't know what a documentary is, Ad hominem.

So if I say I disagree with you, it's an ad hominem attack because it implies you are stupid, uneducated, or believe false information? You seem to mistakenly believe and attempt to prove by a baseless assertion, since we're so fond of meta-talk here that an ad hominem attack is any argument which implicitly insults an opponent, when in fact it is merely an argument which attempts to prove its correctness solely through insulting the opponent.

In other words, if I tell you you are wrong about the definition of ad hominem, but back it up with, say, a definition [reference. This is ad numeram or perhaps even ad verecundiam, depending on who is doing the "accepting". Once again, we've somehow managed to retain our knowledge of Latin terms, but not their proper usage.

But in this instance, you are arguing over the meaning of a word--whether this film can rightfully be called a documentary--and so to make his case, it is perfectly legitimate to present what the majority opinion is on the meaning of that word assuming we both accept that language is determined by the practitioners and not by the dictionary publishers; feel free to dispute with the parent as desired.

Isn't debating fun? Not that it really matters. Those that exist after the nomination are voluntary though candidates are monetarily encouraged to accept them. Therefore, even if ended with "I'm John Kerry and I approved this message" it's still perfectly justifiable as far as political speech goes. We're socialized to believe otherwise because our first exposure to documentaries is generally in elementary school with a discussion of how babies are made, the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus, or the formation of stars or some such.

Of course, all these documentaries have an opinion as well. Many would argue that the babies films indicate a difference between a fetus and a baby. It's worth noting that Columbus wasn't even the first European to set foot in the Americas and that many prefer Genesis to the gravitational condensation of gas as the reason stars form. Wow, worst run on sentence ever 3 - Integrity? Moore said he was producing a film that accused Bush of all kinds of insidious things.

He produced the film. Gotta at least take the man at his word. Bush, on the other hand, pledged to reduce the size of the federal government and refrain from engaging in "Nation building. I'm not saying Moore's film isn't misleading. I'm not saying it's not propaganda. There is an art to arranging facts in a certain way so as to prove a point.

There is a finesse in accomplishing that task in such a way as to leave your audience with an opinion that you never actually stated. Moore is a master of this technique. Nothing, and I say that after an appreciable amount of investigation, in Moore's film is untrue.

Nonetheless, he has artfully arranged things to imply more than he says. Those implications are opinion, not fact. A wary observer will note the difference. As for journalistic That's journalism too. Without France, the US might never have existed.

France had major interests in Iraq. There are pictures of Jacques Chirac with Saddam from the s. Of course, there are more recent pictures of Donald Rumsfeld with Saddam [about.

The Mujahideen NB: there are a variety of english spellings for the arabic word, as with most arabic words. See the wikipedia entry for Mujahideen [wikipedia. It's a general word. In the afghani case, the taliban were but one faction of the collective resistance movement known as the mujahideen.

After the war with the Russians, there was civil war between the Taliban and the other factions, the taliban gaining control of most, but not all, of Afghanistan. As for motives. Let's be honest, every major power which takes an interest in the middle-east does so because of oil. Additionally, the US has a strong political affiliation with Israel, and has long been very involved in assuring Israeli security.

The current administration in particular is quite interested in Israel. So taking out Iraq is something the the people behind the Bush administration have had as a goal since long before Total bought Petrofina at some point and then TotalFina merged with Elf in 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 ? That is a pretty ignorant statement as you are ignoring a lot of French history after 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 and burned D. 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 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. 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 Re:Ahistorical and ungratefull Score: 4 , Insightful. It might be reasonable to claim that the French planned a stupid defense in WWII, but it's hard to claim that they weren't brave A nation is composed of a multitude of people. They aren't all the same. When WWII came, they were thus unprepared. They could have done better with what they had, but the Germans surprised everyone at the time with their approach, so it's really unfair to blame the French for being the first to learn the new tactics the hard way.

And it might as easily have favored our opponents as it did during the "French and Indian war". Re:Ahistorical and ungratefull Score: 5 , Informative. They planned a superb, WWI style defense. The problem is the Germans mounted a WWII blitzkrieg style attack, an attack that had been invented by the Germans just a few years previously. The French were using tanks in an infantry support roll.

The total number of French tanks was about equal to the number of German tanks, but spread across the entire defensive line in groups of one or two per mile. The Germans concentrated their entire tank force into one area and smashed through. Once the line was broken, they were able to attack the rest of the line from the rear.

Re:French Bashing Score: 5 , Insightful. Seriously, though I think that's more a slashdot thing. I'm American, and am pretty disgusted at the state of the U. However reasonable their basic complaint, people do not seem to think very critically about what they say, and despite the huge number of valid criticisms end up spewing bile almost randomly.

It's as if people somehow believe that they won't be taken seriously in their complaints unless they're entirely against everything American. That's something refreshing about Moore: though he sometimes succumbs to the temptation to rant, he avoids just attaching himself to simplistic labels -- he isn't "anti-American", "anti-gun", or whatever, he's just "anti-bad-stuff". I've heard this repeatedly. Unfortunately, certain people aren't clear on what a documentary is.

The relevant definition from "dict" retrieved from WordNet is "a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event. But assuming that Moore's film is factually correct but biased in what facts it presents, it is indeed a documentary. Makes sense. The whole point of the movie is get a message out, why wouldn't he want it to reach the greatest possible audience? Re:Makes sense. Moore is smart enough to realize that he can't prevent people from downloading his movie, and bitching and moaning about it would make him look like a hypocrite.

Instead, he states that he doesn't mind letting people do the same thing that they would do regardless, and in the process improves his public image tremendously.

If Moore is serious about getting the message out, he should put his money where his mouth is and release a DVD rip on the P2P networks. Just because he has a message doesn't preclude him from wanting to make a buck. Especially since if he doesn't, it'll become even harder for him to get a film out. The IMDB average of the movie is 7. If you limit the votes to US voters [imdb.

I'm not sure what to think of those numbers. Of course, any accusation of "voting by principle" can also be applied to the other end of the scale. I have to say that the IMDB poll on this movie is likely useless infomation because there will be some Democrats giving the movie a "10" and some Republicans giving the movie a "1" despite neither group having ever actually seen the film.

Since it's impossible to sort out those biases from people who really saw the movie, it's impossible to correct the number. Turning around an aircraft carrier in midocean so the Pres. Distributors are looking into legal action. Score: 3 , Insightful.

Post your Torrent Links, folks! Score: 3 , Interesting. Post your torrent links here, folks! Re:Post your Torrent Links, folks! F Score: 5 , Interesting. 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 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 Quite a catalyst for provocative thought and discussion. It's not just funny, it's moving and sad, terrifying at times.

I won't spoil it. Now watch this drive! So much for the MPAA It's still illegal, dude Score: 5 , Insightful. Re:It's still illegal, dude Score: 4 , Informative.

No, the story explicitly says that the distributors do not care if people share the movie. Lions Gate is the distributor, by the way. I'm not sure if this makes it perfectly "legal," but it's effectively the same thing if the copyright holder allows it and the creator literally encourages it.

The movie is factual Score: 5 , Informative. I've read all the attacks on the film What the Fdetractors don't like is that Moore presents certain facts to make a point. You can't deny the facts, but the implication is debatable. Re:The movie is factual Score: 4 , Insightful. One can only think Score: 5 , Insightful.

By the numbers. Personal reminiscing. Still no facts. Speaks of a previous debate. Stating a premise of the movie is NOT stating a fact against that movie. See 6 8. See 7 9. See 8 I'm not sure what he's saying here. His opinion of what the movie seems to be saying.

Sets up false dichotomies "Either the Saudis run U. 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. This one is cute. Another cute one. This may be one actual discrepency. He was contained and his country was collapsing around him. He couldn't even travel without body doubles.

This does not count as a factual counter. No facts. He doesn't like the way Moore picks on Bush. He doesn't like the way Moore plays to racial inequality. Attack the movie. If you can. Did you even READ this far into it? Still, no facts to counter the movie.

See Just attacks on Moore. Yet you claim I've already gone through each paragraph, by the numbers. It can't be that difficult, can it? Re:"Think for yourself" Score: 5 , Insightful. 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"?

If you're going by what other people are saying about it, then you're getting a second-hand version - they're not going to present all the points, only the ones they picked up on, and they're not going to present them how Moore presented them, they're going to present their own take on them. For example, reading a critique of the movie isn't good enough, even if you go away and check all the points the critic made and make sure that he's right and the things he claims the movie got wrong are wrong - because you only have his word for it that that's what the movie said, and he'll probably have left out things the movie got right.

And reading a positive review isn't good enough, even if you go away and check all the points the reviewer made, and make sure that all the things he claims the movie got right are right - because you only have his word for it that that's what the movie said, and he'll probably have left out things the movie got wrong.

And even if you read both, you still can't be sure that you have the full story. Primary sources, Loundry, primary sources. You can't fact-check other people's reports of something - you have to go back to the primary source if you want to know whether what it's saying is true or not.

Don't make expensive movies that suck. 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 would oppose that," he said. The more people who see it the better, so I'm happy this is happening. We download the movies because it is convienient to do so ala iTunes. 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.

Another reason people download Very few people download movies to make a profit off of them. Have fun Score: 4 , Informative. Score: 3 , Informative. But does he approve of his own lies as well? It's all about money Score: 4 , Insightful. 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. Not all pirates are assholes 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.

While it is true that there were many things we didn't buy, there were also many things that we DID buy. 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.

Stan's mom and I agree Score: 5 , Funny. What What What? 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 Good answer. If he were crying about his copyright being infringed, he would have been labelled as a rank hypocrite. Moore's next film Score: 5 , Interesting. 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. Simple logic Score: 4 , Interesting.

There is no such thing in that stories about Hey dude!!! There is a cold logic behind Moore's warm aproval 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. Michael Moore George W. Bush archive footage Ben Affleck archive footage. Top credits Director Michael Moore. See more at IMDbPro.

Trailer Photos Top cast Edit. George W. Bush Self as Self archive footage. Ben Affleck Self as Self archive footage. Stevie Wonder Self as Self archive footage. Richard Gephardt Self as Self archive footage. Tom Daschle Self as Self archive footage.

Jeffrey Toobin Self as Self archive footage. Al Gore Self as Self archive footage. Condoleezza Rice Self as Self archive footage. Donald Rumsfeld Self as Self archive footage. Saddam Hussein Self as Self archive footage. George Bush Self as Self archive footage. Ricky Martin Self as Self archive footage. Byron Dorgan Self as Self archive footage.

Osama bin Laden Self as Self archive footage. Craig Unger Self as Self. Larry King Self as Self archive footage. More like this. Watch options. Storyline Edit. Following up on 'Bowling for Columbine', film-maker Michael Moore provides deep and though-provoking insights on the American security system, the level of paranoia, fear, uncertainty, false values and patriotism, which all combined together to set a stage for George W.

Bush to launch a war on Iraq instead of focusing on getting the real culprit s behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, This documentary also focuses on how some Saudis were safely and secretly flown out of America while planes were ostensibly grounded after the attacks.

Archived film footage, candid interviews with politicians, and an overall waste of public funds for a war that was initiated on false pretension to wit: a weapon of mass distraction - to take the focus away from the real enemy and get Americans glued to their TV sets to watch innocent Iraqis and Afghans getting killed.

And a war that would eventually alienate the U. The temperature where freedom burns! Rated R for some violent and disturbing images, and for language. Did you know Edit. Trivia After its official showing at the Cannes Film Festival the movie was given what has been called "the longest standing ovation in the history of the festival". Although the exact length of the applause is a matter of debate, journalists at the screening have reported it being in the area of 15 to 25 minutes.

Goofs Towards the films end, Moore claims one member of Congress had a child in the armed forces. At the time, two members had children in the military. Quotes Narrator : George Orwell once wrote that, "It's not a matter of whether the war is not real, or if it is, Victory is not possible. Crazy credits This film is dedicated to User reviews 1. Top review. Moore shines a spotlight on Bush administration distortions with humor!