Standing up to a stupid white "man."

[Justin_stacy]

Iraq veteran sues Moore over 9/11 film
DENISE LAVOIE
Associated Press
BOSTON - A veteran who lost both arms in the war in Iraq is suing filmmaker Michael Moore for $85 million, alleging that Moore used snippets of a television interview without his permission to falsely portray him as anti-war in "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Sgt. Peter Damon, a National Guardsman from Middleborough, is asking for damages because of "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarrassment, and personal humiliation," according to the lawsuit filed in Suffolk Superior Court last week.

Damon, 33, claims that Moore never asked for his consent to use a clip from an interview Damon did with NBC's "Nightly News."

He lost his arms when a tire on a Black Hawk helicopter exploded while he and another reservist were servicing the aircraft on the ground. Another reservist was killed in the explosion.

In his interview with NBC, Damon was asked about a new painkiller the military was using on wounded veterans. He claims in his lawsuit that the way Moore used the film clip in "Fahrenheit 9/11" - Moore's scathing 2004 documentary criticizing the Bush administration and the war in Iraq - makes him appear to "voice a complaint about the war effort" when he was actually complaining about "the excruciating type of pain" that comes with the injury he suffered.

In the movie, Damon is shown lying on a gurney, with his wounds bandaged. He says he feels likes he's "being crushed in a vise."

"But they (the painkillers) do a lot to help it," he says. "And they take a lot of the edge off of it."

Damon is shown shortly after U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., is speaking about the Bush administration and says, "You know, they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind."

Damon contends that Moore's positioning of the clip just after the congressman's comments makes him appear as if he feels like he was "left behind" by the Bush administration and the military.

In his lawsuit, Damon says he "agrees with and supports the President and the United States' war effort, and he was not left behind."

He said that, while at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center recovering from his wounds, he had surgery and physical therapy, learned to use prosthetics and live independently. He also said that Homes For Our Troops, a not-for-profit group, built him a house with handicapped accessibility.

"The work creates a substantially fictionalized and falsified implication as a wounded serviceman who was left behind when Plaintiff was not left behind but supported, financially and emotionally, by the active assistance of the President, the United States and his family, friends, acquaintances and community," Damon says in his lawsuit.

Moore did not immediately return calls seeking comment Wednesday. A message was left for Moore at a personal number in New York and with HarperCollins, publisher of Moore's 2002 book, "Stupid White Men...And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation!"

A spokesman for Miramax Film Corp., also named as a defendant, did not immediately return a call.

Damon did not immediately respond to a request for an interview.

"It's upsetting to him because he's lived his life supportive of his government, he's been a patriot, he's been a soldier, and he's now being portrayed in a movie that is the antithesis of all of that," Damon's lawyer, Dennis Lynch, said.

Damon is seeking $75 million in damages for emotional distress and loss of reputation. His wife is suing for an additional $10 million in damages because of the mental distress caused to her husband, Lynch said.


Hopefully more of the other people he minipulated in that "film" will follow this man's lead.

[catscradle]

good, i hope he takes michael moore to the cleaners.

[FallingOut]

I could be wrong, but if you are on a TV show, isnt it ok for people to use that for anything? I dont think he would have to ask his permission if it was on a national show.

[Justin_stacy]

From what i can tell they needed his concent to air and cut his dialoge along with that of NBC....


Jennifer Damon said she saw “Fahrenheit 911” on the Fourth of July, after learning her husband was shown in the film from John Gonsalves, founder of Homes For Our Troops, which is working to build the Damons a home.

Gonsalves said he learned of Peter’s film appearance from a neighbor.

“I was shocked. I would have expected if Peter was in the movie that someone would have at least talked to him about it, which I thought was kind of unfair,” Gonsalves said. “I think for Michael Moore to portray Peter in there without any knowledge is terrible.”

Calls placed to Ken Sunshine Consultants Inc., the New York City-based firm handling publicity for the film, were not returned Wednesday or this morning.

An NBC News spokeswoman responded through an e-mail about the news organization’s policy on use of its material.

“As all news organizations do, NBC News does license footage that has already aired on NBC programs,” wrote NBC News spokesman Barbara Levin. “As a general rule, most news organizations, including NBC News, do not obtain releases from people who appear on our news programs.

“When we do license footage — as in this instance — NBC includes a provision that it is the responsibility of the licensee, not NBC, to obtain all required consents and releases necessary to use the footage,” she wrote.

Based on that policy, it would have been up to Moore to get any needed clearance.

Gonsalves, who took part in a second interview NBC Nightly News conducted with Damon, said he did not sign any consent form for that interview. Gonsalves said the clip in the film is footage from a first interview NBC did with Damon.

Jennifer Damon deferred comment on the film and the consent issue to her husband. It could not be learned Wednesday night if Peter Damon signed any release form with NBC.

George Tobia Jr., a partner and entertainment attorney with Boston firm Burns & Levinson, said if a person agrees to an interview without signing a release form, there is an implied consent.

“The implied consent is usually good enough for the interview,” Tobia said. “The question is, how far does the implied consent go?

“Unless NBC has a signed document granting them full rights, unless they had those rights, I would expect the filmmakers would want to go back to this guy and get his permission. Otherwise it’s invasion of his privacy for this usage,” Tobia said.

John Taylor Williams, co-chairman of the media and entertainment group at the Boston firm Fish & Richardson, agreed.

“If he didn’t sign that, then he’s got some fairly serious rights about its use,” Williams said.

Both attorneys said the footage from NBC would not be considered part of the public domain.

They also said they could not imagine Moore did not obtain consent from NBC to use its images.

“I would assume he got consent from them. Obviously there’s a lot of money at stake,” Williams said.

After Walt Disney Co. refused to distribute “Fahrenheit 9/11” through its Miramax Films division, Miramax chiefs Bob and Harvey Weinstein distributed it through Lions Gate Films and IFC Films.

Tobia said a company distributing a film would typically do a clearance of the entire film to check on issues such as consent. For example, if a filmmaker wants to use a piece of music in a scene, it has to obtain clearance for it.

http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog/comments/whoring_out_the_troops

[dangets]

i think michael moore is a joke, and i'm glad this lawsuit is out there, but...

...he's lived his life supportive of his government, he's been a patriot...

these two things are not mutually inclusive. i really think there are people who believe that one can't exist without the other

[x togepi x]

what's with all the scare quotes?

I mean, I can understand you not like F-9/11. Hell, I think the war is and was incredibly stupid and I thought F9/11 was pretty dumb.

but why do you feel the need to play the role of the hypermasculine by questioning micheal moore's manliness just because he made a movie with a premise you disagree with?

[theESCO]

Can I sue George Bush for "manipulating" intelligence?

[Paul Tao]

We've got Michael Moore, you guys have Bill O'Reilly. It works out.

[Broken Parachute]

We've got Michael Moore, you guys have Bill O'Reilly. It works out.

Hahaha why don't we just eliminate them both? There's enough crazy conservative/liberal tag teams to go around. I'm quite happy with Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity and their crazy personalities. Great drinking buddies I hear.

[x togepi x]

I would advocate replacing all pundit shows with thunderdome style deathmatches.

[Justin_stacy]

what's with all the scare quotes?

I mean, I can understand you not like F-9/11. Hell, I think the war is and was incredibly stupid and I thought F9/11 was pretty dumb.

but why do you feel the need to play the role of the hypermasculine by questioning micheal moore's manliness just because he made a movie with a premise you disagree with?


Where do you idiots come up with this shit? Where did I question his masculinity?

Here we'll take it slow. The title of the thread is a play off of the title of a book written by Michael Moore; in this case I switched MEN to MAN. To emphasize this change I “ “ (or scare quoted) the word. “ “ are not a comment on sexual nature, but a way of emphasizing a particularly word or phrase.

[x togepi x]

wouldn't it be a "stupid white man"?, since there's that anti-moore book "Micheal Moore is a stupid white man".

sorry, I thought you were referencing that, since you took one of your sources from an anti-moore site. I'll try not to keep up on my literary references next time.

[justinevans]

We've got Michael Moore, you guys have Bill O'Reilly. It works out.

True, but as one hosts a show, the other makes millions off some retarded movie.

[justinevans]

I could be wrong, but if you are on a TV show, isnt it ok for people to use that for anything? I dont think he would have to ask his permission if it was on a national show.

Yes, but in the way it is used it can still be found as libel or standard.

If you show the interview in the movie, you have to show the questions asked along with the answers. This lawsuit is old though. This guy was in Fahrenhype 9/11.

[FallingOut]

True, but as one hosts a show, the other makes millions off some retarded movie.

How the hell is it a retarded movie? For showing some truths that the media is afraid to show? I dont understand why people view this movie as being so stupid, just because you disagree with his political opinions. It was a very well done movie, you cant deny that. And you dont think Bill O'Reilly makes millions????? That guy is the biggest asshole on televsion, and I thought that before I even knew he was a big conservative. Whenever somebody makes a good point against him, he just tells them to "shut up." What a badass.

[Justin_stacy]

wouldn't it be a "stupid white man"?, since there's that anti-moore book "Micheal Moore is a stupid white man".

There's so many books about that fraud that its hard to keep up on all of them..........

[selftitled85]

ok seriously lets be honest now...

im all for this guy suing michael moore because he should.


but 85 million?


bullshit. a million at most.

[Justin_stacy]

How the hell is it a retarded movie? For showing some truths that the media is afraid to show? .

Maybe because its full of lies and distortions, so much so that even most liberals view it as a work of fiction.

[selftitled85]

Maybe because its full of lies and distortions, so much so that even most liberals view it as a work of fiction.
fine. but that still doesnt merit him getting 85 million. now maybe 85 million to all the people he wrongly portrayed...or 50 million (more reaonable.)

seriously people ask for ludicrous amounts of money for things like this.

if it was THAT big of a deal...he would have made his voice heard soon after it was released. for things like this they should check the financial backing of the people to see if there is a hidden agenda.

[Paul Tao]

True, but as one hosts a show, the other makes millions off some retarded movie.
I'm pretty sure Bill O'Reilly makes a good amount of money as well, especially with his books.

But whatever, I'm not going to quibble over fiscal details. I was just making a point that right and left both have their propagandists and controversial figures. I'd think that the people who debate regularly in this forum are intelligent enough to recognize what are the extreme figures and what are the real facts and real issues that ought to be debated. (although making fun of the O'Reillys is quite funny)

[splitsecond]

ok seriously lets be honest now...

im all for this guy suing michael moore because he should.


but 85 million?


bullshit. a million at most.

Go to law school and I bet you will advise your clients to shoot for $85 million. The fee for most big cases is 30-40%. Do the math.

[splitsecond]

I'm pretty sure Bill O'Reilly makes a good amount of money as well, especially with his books.

But whatever, I'm not going to quibble over fiscal details. I was just making a point that right and left both have their propagandists and controversial figures. I'd think that the people who debate regularly in this forum are intelligent enough to recognize what are the extreme figures and what are the real facts and real issues that ought to be debated. (although making fun of the O'Reillys is quite funny)

I don't think Bill O'Reilly is anything at all like a right wing version of Michael Moore.

[selftitled85]

Go to law school and I bet you will advise your clients to shoot for $85 million. The fee for most big cases is 30-40%. Do the math.
well i want go to law school. but from a non-lawyers point of view. something like this is not worth anywhere near 85 mil. and since he was only one case in the movie...he does not deserve 30-40%.

[Justin_stacy]

fine. but that still doesnt merit him getting 85 million. now maybe 85 million to all the people he wrongly portrayed...or 50 million (more reaonable.)

seriously people ask for ludicrous amounts of money for things like this..



I didn't say it did, making a fictional film is not a crime. And no jury is going to give him $85 million, but you don’t low ball yourself when starting a suit. If the man didn't sign something then Moore is obviously guilty (and there are about five other families/people he emotionally used, who are also considering suit), and what’s the point in limiting what a jury can find on your behalf (jury’s have been known to go off the deep end in rewards, just look at the tobacco settlements).

Does this man deserve $85 million for what Moore purposely did, probably not, but i think this is also partially a statement to bring to life Moore's filming practices and the way he emotionally uses people for political gain. And if the figure wasn't high it would just get glossed over by a left friendly press. Most people know very little about the truth behind that film and the people whose images and words he distorted. And this large suit will hopefully bring that to light.


if it was THAT big of a deal...he would have made his voice heard soon after it was released. for things like this they should check the financial backing of the people to see if there is a hidden agenda.

he did, check my second post.

[Paul Tao]

I don't think Bill O'Reilly is anything at all like a right wing version of Michael Moore.
Bill O'Reilly was just the first person I thought of. I mean, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, whatever. Rush Limbaugh? Maybe you guys don't have a cinematic-propaganda version of Michael Moore, but close enough.

[Justin_stacy]

I don't think Bill O'Reilly is anything at all like a right wing version of Michael Moore.

He's clearly not, but he's in a figure head position and Moore's tatics have to be defended, so a foolish comparison is made.

A right wing Moore is Anne Coulter.

[Paul Tao]

He's clearly not, but he's in a figure head position and Moore's tatics have to be defended, so a foolish comparison is made.

A right wing Moore is Anne Coulter.
Please note my post above. I was just pointing to the first nationally-prominent controversial right wing entertainment-esque figure I could think of.

[Justin_stacy]

Please note my post above. I was just pointing to the first nationally-prominent controversial right wing entertainment-esque figure I could think of.

ya i know, i posted at the same time as you............But ny point about Moore is still true, though maybe not with you personally.

[Rock]

good, i hope he takes michael moore to the cleaners.
haha, me too. god, how i dislike michael moore's "documentaries."

[x togepi x]

There's so many books about that fraud that its hard to keep up on all of them..........

haha. That's the one that comes to mind because I saw it sitting on one of my friend's bookshelves for the longest time.


but seriously, can we not compare bill O. and micheal moore?

Bill O'Reilly blatantly lies.

Micheal Moore twists things around.

I mean, I'm probably more liberal than anyone in here, but we should call a spade a spade. Most commentators on any news channel are liars or tools for whatever political party they happen to like.

[justinevans]

How the hell is it a retarded movie? For showing some truths that the media is afraid to show? I dont understand why people view this movie as being so stupid, just because you disagree with his political opinions. It was a very well done movie, you cant deny that. And you dont think Bill O'Reilly makes millions????? That guy is the biggest asshole on televsion, and I thought that before I even knew he was a big conservative. Whenever somebody makes a good point against him, he just tells them to "shut up." What a badass.

Why because he doped people into believing a bunch of nonsense by taking things out of context. Our entire media structure has become a society of taking things out of context.

George Bush could say "I don't like black people...I love them" And fat Michael Moore will just show Bush saying "I don't like black people."

Also, he took a tragedy and made millions on it because a bunch of stupid Americans follow these extremists on both sides like they are the hand of God or the hand of the Anti-everything. I bet you 5% of the people who watched Fahrenheit 9/11 were far too lazy to watch Fahrenhype 9/11 - a movie narrated by a Democrat. A movie that pointed out the fallacies in Moore's work.

His big thing in Bowling for Columbine was stopping K-Mart from selling guns. Good for that, but it was another movie where he made $$ of the tragedies of people. I am sorry he is from Flint fucking Michigan a city where its own people cost each other jobs with their Union bull shit.

[x togepi x]

I bet you 5% of the people who watched Fahrenheit 9/11 were far too lazy to watch Fahrenhype 9/11 - a movie narrated by a Democrat. A movie that pointed out the fallacies in Moore's work.

Zell Miller does not count as a democrat. He wanted the Democrats to move back to the right so they could be like they were a long time ago. This is the guy who spoke at the republican national convention and backed very few of the party's positions.

besides, is this not the same movie that quotes Ann Coulter and a bunch of other conservatives? It's just as biased as Fahrenheit 9/11.

[justinevans]

Zell Miller does not count as a democrat. He wanted the Democrats to move back to the right so they could be like they were a long time ago. This is the guy who spoke at the republican national convention and backed very few of the party's positions.

besides, is this not the same movie that quotes Ann Coulter and a bunch of other conservatives? It's just as biased as Fahrenheit 9/11.

yes it is, the main point about that movie however is they had the people taken ouyt of context in the film to point out michael moore was wrong.

[x togepi x]

you mean like, the people in F 9/11? or did this movie get quotes from a bunch of conservatives and spin them a different way and claim that this is the style of film making micheal moore does?

[justinevans]

you mean like, the people in F 9/11? or did this movie get quotes from a bunch of conservatives and spin them a different way and claim that this is the style of film making micheal moore does?

you mean like this?

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten time since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb 18,1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry (D - MA), and others Oct. 9,1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." >- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002



"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction .. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[a speedo model]

good, i hope he takes michael moore to the cleaners.

hahaha, exactly what i was thinking.

[Justin_stacy]

haha. That's the one that comes to mind because I saw it sitting on one of my friend's bookshelves for the longest time.


but seriously, can we not compare bill O. and micheal moore?

Bill O'Reilly blatantly lies.

Micheal Moore twists things around.

I mean, I'm probably more liberal than anyone in here, but we should call a spade a spade. Most commentators on any news channel are liars or tools for whatever political party they happen to like.

Are you joking? Moore only twists the truth? Distorting, editing, manipulating........it all comes down to lying (because there is intent to mislead).

As for O'reilly, I’m not going to go out of my way to defend him, but there is a difference. The Factor is an opinion show, not a hard news program. The show is themed after his opinions on certain subjects. Michael Moore, on the other hand, portrays, with the help of the liberal media, his fictional (you do understand that?) films as documentaries, which they are not.

People know that Bill’s show is an opinion oriented program when they view it, most who view Moore’s films don’t understand that there pure fiction. Which is worse?



You're a fool, or mentally blind, if you think Moore just "twists" the truth.

[Justin_stacy]

Zell Miller does not count as a democrat. He wanted the Democrats to move back to the right so they could be like they were a long time ago. This is the guy who spoke at the republican national convention and backed very few of the party's positions.

besides, is this not the same movie that quotes Ann Coulter and a bunch of other conservatives? It's just as biased as Fahrenheit 9/11.

you mean back to the center.......

[x togepi x]

Moore's lies aren't blatant with no evidence to back them up. He twists things into evidence to back up his claims, therefore I said he was different than Bill who just says something as if it's truth. It's a different style.

and on zell miller I said "to the right' since it was a shift to the right. It's pointless to argue what "the center" means since your definition of who's moderate and who's extreme depends on where you fall in the spectrum.

[theESCO]

HEY...

You pricks won...stop bitching. :)

[Justin_stacy]

Moore's lies aren't blatant with no evidence to back them up. He twists things into evidence to back up his claims, therefore I said he was different than Bill who just says something as if it's truth. It's a different style..

This is like arguing color shades with a blind person.........but say your statement is true, which its not, but for shit sake say it is. How is fabricating "evidence" to "back up" false inforrmation not the same as just out right saying a lie. Is a lie not still a lie irregardless of how its presented?


and on zell miller I said "to the right' since it was a shift to the right. .

You said "BACK to the right".....which implied Zell wanted the party to move to the political right, rather then back to the middle-left where it once was.

[justinevans]

Are you joking? Moore only twists the truth? Distorting, editing, manipulating........it all comes down to lying (because there is intent to mislead).

As for O'reilly, I’m not going to go out of my way to defend him, but there is a difference. The Factor is an opinion show, not a hard news program. The show is themed after his opinions on certain subjects. Michael Moore, on the other hand, portrays, with the help of the liberal media, his fictional (you do understand that?) films as documentaries, which they are not.

People know that Bill’s show is an opinion oriented program when they view it, most who view Moore’s films don’t understand that there pure fiction. Which is worse?



You're a fool, or mentally blind, if you think Moore just "twists" the truth.


It is like beating a dead horse with these kids. They all want to save the world, but they'll never do anything. They sit back and watch celebrities and follow their opinions because that 20 million check they had to get for their last movie really puts them in some high status. Because of that, the price of movies rise. Shit like that hurts our poor too. They cannot enjoy any entertainment either. Music artists alike. I think my new goal in life is to teach a celebrity economic class.

[x togepi x]

This is like arguing color shades with a blind person.........but say your statement is true, which its not, but for shit sake say it is. How is fabricating "evidence" to "back up" false inforrmation not the same as just out right saying a lie. Is a lie not still a lie irregardless of how its presented?

It's slightly different as there are shades of truth in what Moore says. For example, remember the part of the movie about all the connections Bush has to the Saudis? Those are true, it's been documented. Moore then took these facts and tried to twist it to imply (or just outright state) the reason we went to war was not to fight terrorism, but to pull a fast one over on the general public so nobody questions why he's so cozy with them.

Questions of why we did what we did are debatable. we can't say truthfully, that we went to war for X, because there's a lot of facts that we're missing. We don't honestly know what went on in those secret meetings about the war. We don't know if the CIA fabricated evidence or if it just screwed up. We can make guesses, and back them up with facts that have come to light, but until we know everything, it's still a debatable premise and not a fact.

My point is, Moore's thesis on Farenheit 9/11 is not a fact, it's a premise. He may have presented it as a fact, but that's what people do when they present an argument like his. The difference between an outright lie is that Moore only twisted and supposedly fabricated evidence to back up his claims.

Moore's fabicration of evidence is dishonest, but it's not outright lying. It's deceptive, yes, but he's doing it to convince people of what he thinks to be true. so he's not lying. He's just really bad at persuading people and coming up with logical ways to justify his thinking.

A lie would be like when Bill O'Reilly claims that that no right wing person ever is going to be on the cover of Time, while ignoring the fact that Ann Coulter has. The difference here is Bill made no attempt to back up his false claim with facts, he just said it. and if you were to call him on it, he'd just repeat himself and cut off your mic.

I don't understand why you feel the need to call me stupid. I don't like Moore any more than you do. In fact, I probably dislike him more since he makes liberals look bad.


You said "BACK to the right".....which implied Zell wanted the party to move to the political right, rather then back to the middle-left where it once was.

which is why i said: "It's pointless to argue what "the center" means since your definition of who's moderate and who's extreme depends on where you fall in the spectrum." Since, in my opinion, Zell's policies are not moderate at all, but are politically right. I'm well aware that you don't think he's as right wing as I do.


It is like beating a dead horse with these kids. They all want to save the world, but they'll never do anything.

what exactly are you doing to save the world besides being an internet tough guy?

[GoWaitInTheCar]

Why because he doped people into believing a bunch of nonsense by taking things out of context. Our entire media structure has become a society of taking things out of context.

George Bush could say "I don't like black people...I love them" And fat Michael Moore will just show Bush saying "I don't like black people."

Also, he took a tragedy and made millions on it because a bunch of stupid Americans follow these extremists on both sides like they are the hand of God or the hand of the Anti-everything. I bet you 5% of the people who watched Fahrenheit 9/11 were far too lazy to watch Fahrenhype 9/11 - a movie narrated by a Democrat. A movie that pointed out the fallacies in Moore's work.

His big thing in Bowling for Columbine was stopping K-Mart from selling guns. Good for that, but it was another movie where he made $$ of the tragedies of people. I am sorry he is from Flint fucking Michigan a city where its own people cost each other jobs with their Union bull shit.

Best point in this whole thread.

[justinevans]

what exactly are you doing to save the world besides being an internet tough guy?

An internet tough guy? Um ok. Lets see, I went to school to help become a more productive person in the community. I donate to charities. I buy products from companies that employ American citizens. I help people if I am available to do so. And I can still do all that even if I am a moderate conservative. Get outside the labels and stop following fucking extremist morons. I'm not the one banking on the tragedies of other people.

[x togepi x]

woah woah woah. what extremist moron am I following again? You have no idea who my political heros are. You have no idea what my beliefs are.

never once have I said someone's good because they're liberal and someone's bad because they're conservative. If you were paying attention, I said that pretty much everyone in the media is really deceitful.

I too, donate money to charities, buy american, and have volunteered for the community. So what else are you going to pull out of nowhere?


It seems like the only person who has a problem labeling is YOU. Because I'm really liberal, I'm suddenly someone who follows celebrities and waits for the world to make itself better? stop generalizing. what you're doing is no better than if i were to say "all conservatives beat their wives and cheat on their taxes."

[Justin_stacy]

It's slightly different as there are shades of truth in what Moore says. For example, remember the part of the movie about all the connections Bush has to the Saudis? Those are true, it's been documented. Moore then took these facts and tried to twist it to imply (or just outright state) the reason we went to war was not to fight terrorism, but to pull a fast one over on the general public so nobody questions why he's so cozy with them. ?

See now your blindly defending, because your over looking what doesn’t justify your point. O’reilly doesn’t have an hour long “big lie” program, there are a hand-full of moments where his info was less then perfect, but yet you chastise him in whole. Yet at the same time you absolutely defend Moore because on a hand full of occasions there is some underlining truth to the lies he is telling.

This is what is making you look like a fool.

My point is, Moore's thesis on Farenheit 9/11 is not a fact, it's a premise. He may have presented it as a fact, but that's what people do when they present an argument like his. The difference between an outright lie is that Moore only twisted and supposedly fabricated evidence to back up his claims.

Moore's fabicration of evidence is dishonest, but it's not outright lying. It's deceptive, yes, but he's doing it to convince people of what he thinks to be true. so he's not lying. He's just really bad at persuading people and coming up with logical ways to justify his thinking.

I know I’m picking apart your post now, but let me point out your mistakes, and maybe another long argument can be avoided.

Ok first, if you agree that Moore’s thesis in Fahrenheit 9/11 was not factual, then was it appropriate to call the film a documentary? A documentary is the act of presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter.

Second you say that Moore fabricated evidence to make people believe what he was saying was the truth, but is that not the same as lying? A lie is any false statement deliberately presented as being true. It seems to me that by your own statement Moore is a liar.


So now let’s put it together, by your own understanding of the film and by what you’ve said here F-9/11 is not a documentary, but a fictional film based on perversions of the truth (note my original point). And that Moore purposely distorted the truth in an attempt to “persuade” people to believe what he is saying as the truth, which is in fact the definition of what a lie is. Your total lack of understanding the words you've used is whats defeating the conclusion your attempting to make.

A lie would be like when Bill O'Reilly claims that that no right wing person ever is going to be on the cover of Time, while ignoring the fact that Ann Coulter has. The difference here is Bill made no attempt to back up his false claim with facts, he just said it. and if you were to call him on it, he'd just repeat himself and cut off your mic.

Actually that’s an opinion, unless of course you can prove intent.

I don't understand why you feel the need to call me stupid. I don't like Moore any more than you do. In fact, I probably dislike him more since he makes liberals look bad.

It’s not so much you but the things you are saying and the defense you’re taking that look stupid. Chances are you’re not stupid, but misinformed. But conversing on the internet doesn’t make the distinction easy to tell.

[The Revisionist]

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

The end.

[FallingOut]

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

The end.

Ok, maybe a lot of that is right, but A LOT of that is opinions.

[cal1082]

How the hell is it a retarded movie? For showing some truths that the media is afraid to show? I dont understand why people view this movie as being so stupid, just because you disagree with his political opinions. It was a very well done movie, you cant deny that. And you dont think Bill O'Reilly makes millions????? That guy is the biggest asshole on televsion, and I thought that before I even knew he was a big conservative. Whenever somebody makes a good point against him, he just tells them to "shut up." What a badass.

On behalf of conservative's everywhere learn what a conservative is before you label someone one.

[x togepi x]

See now your blindly defending, because your over looking what doesn’t justify your point. O’reilly doesn’t have an hour long “big lie” program, there are a hand-full of moments where his info was less then perfect, but yet you chastise him in whole. Yet at the same time you absolutely defend Moore because on a hand full of occasions there is some underlining truth to the lies he is telling.

just exactly what point do you think I'm trying to justify? You already know I dislike Moore. You already know I dislike O'reilly. I can care less which one of the two you prefer, if any.

I haven't defended Moore at all. When have I? When I talked about O'reilly, I was talking about when he lied about something that is a fact. I'm not talking about something like why we went to war in Iraq, which is completely debatable, but things like saying Americans committed a war crime at Malmedy in WW2 against the nazi troops who had surrendered, when tiw as the o ther way around.

Do I need to say, yet again, that I thought Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't very good? I guess i'll point out that I also didn't really like reading "Dude, Where's my Country" and the only part of Bowling For Columbine I really liked was the cartoon part.

why does it matter if I don't think Moore outright lies, but rather skews evidence in favor of what he thinks. I already told you it was decietful. I already told you it was wrong.

I know I’m picking apart your post now, but let me point out your mistakes, and maybe another

Ok first, if you agree that Moore’s thesis in Fahrenheit 9/11 was not factual, then was it appropriate to call the film a documentary? A documentary is the act of presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter.

It shouldn't be. It's not a documentary.

Second you say that Moore fabricated evidence to make people believe what he was saying was the truth, but is that not the same as lying? A lie is any false statement deliberately presented as being true. It seems to me that by your own statement Moore is a liar.

I don't say he's a liar because his entire premise is debatable. If he were telling me the sky is red, and then manufacturing some rose colored glasses, then yes I'd call him a liar. I don't say he's a liar since even if his evidence weren't fabricated, you'd still be able to say that he was wrong, as any supposed justification for the war is debatable until we know all the facts, which we don't.

To lie, you have to be talking about things that are objective facts. Even if all the soldiers consented to be in the movie, you'd agree that it wouldn't be a fair and balanced look at what is going on in Iraq since you could easily make a movie about Iraq finding a bunch of soldiers who think the war is the right thing to do.


So now let’s put it together, by your own understanding of the film and by what you’ve said here F-9/11 is not a documentary, but a fictional film based on perversions of the truth (note my original point). And that Moore purposely distorted the truth in an attempt to “persuade” people to believe what he is saying as the truth, which is in fact the definition of what a lie is. Your total lack of understanding the words you've used is whats defeating the conclusion your attempting to make.

To lie, I think you have to know the truth and then act in a way to obscure it. Moore doesn't know the truth. He only thinks he does, and that's the key point I'm trying to make. Even if all Moore's evidence is legit, his premises and conclusion are all debatable. It's not a lie, it's a poorly constructed movie.

[A picasso blue]

i still like Bowling for Columbine


but Moore needs to stop with his crusade

[youcomebeforeyo]

This is fucking stupid.

Grow some balls and get over it.

You don't need $75 million, no-one does.

Why did this law suit take you two years to file?

[justinevans]

This is fucking stupid.

Grow some balls and get over it.

You don't need $75 million, no-one does.

Why did this law suit take you two years to file?

um why don't tell the guy?
and it is actually fairly old news.

[Tony]

On behalf of conservative's everywhere learn what a conservative is before you label someone one.
On behalf of conservatives everywhere, learn how to use an apostrophe. You're making your people look bad. :D

[Trainsaw]

This is fucking stupid.

Grow some balls and get over it.

You don't need $75 million, no-one does.

Why did this law suit take you two years to file?
Its very doubtful he'll even win with a request that high

[Rock]

Its very doubtful he'll even win with a request that high
he could very easily win, he just may not (most likely won't) be rewarded that much money. that's how that usually works, to my knowledge.

[cal1082]

On behalf of conservatives everywhere, learn how to use an apostrophe. You're making your people look bad. :D

If this......." ' ".........is the least of my worries I think we'll survive.

[The Revisionist]

Ok, maybe a lot of that is right, but A LOT of that is opinions.While I agree that a FEW of the examples are stretched-out and injected with the author's unneeded comparisons (everything that is labeled as a "cheap shot"), if you check the links, read his listings of deceits, and watch the movie, it is incredibly clear that there is very little on the up-and-up with the movie.