Michael Moore sued for Farenheit 9/11

POSTED BY: Amiton
UPDATED: Monday, June 5, 2006 03:06
VIEWED: 12492
PAGE 4 of 13

Of course less than of half of Fahrenheit 9/11 was a mix of extrapolations from some info they got somewhere mixed with real truths, but come on! Look at the current government and look at how our administrations been operating. If anything, Fahrenheit 9/11 showed a pretty dark side of our current administration that sort of defiles the image of America and mom's apple pie. It paints the administration as a dark entity that pretty much ignores the rule and does what it wants regardless of the consequences. And like I said earlier, this administrations actions make a person believe Moore’s movie hook, line, and sinker. Our president’s actions make Moore’s movie believable

The fact that we who live here in the states aren’t rioting out in the streets about all of what’s occurred over the past few years just goes to show that our current government or at least the top people know we are sheep, and we will do nothing about anything until we personally are affected. As long as our beer and televisions aren’t interrupted, we basically will go along with the program, and people who aren’t making much money, are too busy trying to make ends meet rather than go out and protest.

Anyway, I’m surprised it took someone this long to get around to suing Moore, but I’m glad he made the movie. It’s not all B.S.

River


P.S. Thank god I have duel Citizenship

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Amiton,

"He was a specific individual being quoted in a way that misrepresented the context of what he was saying in that quote."
Was he? That part is very unclear. From the quotes I read, with the words he used, he was pretty obviously NOT talking about the war. That's what made me think he was, crudely said, background material. Simply a man in serious pain, portrayed BY THE FILMMAKER as being dumped by the system he served.

"that *has* to be actionabale"
Ah, but the devil is in the details, which are lacking.

"a *huge* percentage of the military ... were ready to crucify Michael Moore after they saw this movie"
Roughly 80% of the military currently in Iraq STILL thinks Hussein perpetrated 9/11. Could this (trivial) misconception have something to do with that?

"I don't know many people that had any clue how far off the mark he was until the rebuttal documentaries came out"
Not sure where you're going with this. Are you trying to debate the lawsuit timing or Moore's claims?

"it doesn't invalidate what is being said"
No, it doesn't and I hope I didn't imply that it did.
My interpretation of what little I learned from the article is that there's no basis for his claim. That would invalidate them.
My supposition about why, and when, he was making his claim was that it wasn't being resolved to his $$$atisfaction in a timely way. Not knowing how that particular court works I can only draw on my labor experience, and conclude that attempting informal resolution doesn't relieve time limits. Having said that, I think he saw his clock ticking down. And anyone can always sue. If it's something covered by insurance, it's usually for a minimal few thousand dollars to make them go away rather than fight in court. But if it's not covered, then you might as well sue for big bucks. So, simply filing a bloated lawsuit is a miniscule matter. As I said before, that someone chose to sue is not news.
It will only be news if he wins.


Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RiveR6213:
It’s not all B.S.

---

There's enough truth in it to piss off a lot of folk, that's all that I ask...

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hello All,

This lawsuit is not meant to be won. It is (to me) obviously designed to increase awareness of Michael Moore's 'documentary' technique.

I remember after seeing Bowling for Columbine, evidence surfaced that Michael Moore had manipulated footage of NRA meetings to show that the NRA president was saying things at times and places that they were not, in fact, said. This was done to demonize the cold, unfeeling NRA.

I have no doubt that the lawsuit will fail. Suing for 80+ million makes headlines, though. And that is the purpose of the lawsuit. This would not be the first time a lawsuit was made, not to win money, but rather to publicize an issue.

For my part, I hope more people come to understand that Michael Moore's films are not documentaries any more than Government Press Conferences are documentaries.

It's all propaganda. Right, Left. The truth is in the Center.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Yes, those good old boy republicans who put troops on black marchers were certianly WAAAYYY better than democrats.

---

I'm a REALLY good old boy Republican, the kind who sent troops to break black chains. You know...as He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free...and such.

Party of Lincoln, TR, Ike, Reagan, Bush...all the same theme. Liberty, rugged individualism, American Manifest Destiny to bring the blessings of liberty to a dark and stormy world.

Not to take away from the Democratic Presidents. They all had good motives, some had a bit more skill then others. I have great respect for honost Democrats, not the wacky liberals, but the good honost men whose vision is the same as mine but merely choose another path...I just don't see them very often. Most are kept out of the national spotlight. I remember Bob Casey, great governor, met him once on the farm during the '88 drought...banned from the '92 Democratic Convention because he believed life begins at conception. Turns out the only big Democratic tent that year was being pitched in the nominees pants.

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Browncoats don't marry for money. They marry for love and figger out a way to get the money. Even legal ways.
What moon are you from?

---

I thought Browncoats were tricked into marriage by those trying to get their ship or perhaps their pants.

H

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

It's all propaganda. Right, Left. The truth is in the Center.

---

The truth is where you find it. Maybe even sometimes in the center.

What I didn't like about MM's 9-11 film is not that it wasn't basically true; I just thought it was weak. Stock footage of various Bushes meeting with various Saudi Princes doesn't prove anything.


---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

I thought Browncoats were tricked into marriage by those trying to get their ship or perhaps their pants.

---

My first marrage ended in the chicanerous loss of my ship, but it had a C.38 engine, and fell right out of the sky. With her in it.

Last laugh Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Hey Rue =) I seem to have dodged the better part of your ire, and I think I'm better for that =p Anyway...

Quote:

---

"He was a specific individual being quoted in a way that misrepresented the context of what he was saying in that quote."
Was he? That part is very unclear. From the quotes I read, with the words he used, he was pretty obviously NOT talking about the war. That's what made me think he was, crudely said, background material. Simply a man in serious pain, portrayed BY THE FILMMAKER as being dumped by the system he served.

---

Hrm. Well, I think on one hand you're talking about what I said, and on another it almost sounds like something else.

Most of what I was trying to say was comparing a specific image of an individual with an image of a larger group as per your analogy. As to the veracity of how the quotes were used, you have the same information that I do. Actually, probably more because you're more willing than I am to go out and get the answers to even the little questions that bother you than I am. I can't say how misrepresentative it was or wasn't personally. Like I said, I meant that more for your analogy, and I guess I missed =p

Quote:

---

"that *has* to be actionabale"
Ah, but the devil is in the details, which are lacking.

---

Yes, the details are very lacking. In my mind, if things went down the way I described them (e.g. like the pretty picture that my imagination painted for me), then I still assert that it is actionable and should be. Unfortunately, I don't know enough of the details to say that with any more certainty than I have (meaning that adequate acknowledgement has to be credited to my own imagination).

Quote:

---

"a *huge* percentage of the military ... were ready to crucify Michael Moore after they saw this movie"
Roughly 80% of the military currently in Iraq STILL thinks Hussein perpetrated 9/11. Could this (trivial) misconception have something to do with that?

---

In my *particular* case, I can definitively answer that question that the misconception has nothing to do with it. The people who were relevant before the ellipsis was inserted into my quote didn't have any particular perception that Hussein was to blame for 9/11. I really can't speak for the part of the military that made up that 80% statistic, though. Statistical point goes to Rue after arbitration? =p

Quote:

---

"I don't know many people that had any clue how far off the mark he was until the rebuttal documentaries came out"
Not sure where you're going with this. Are you trying to debate the lawsuit timing or Moore's claims?

---

All I was doing here was trying to assert that there's a *plausible* excuse as to why it took so long to get the lawsuit launched. The movie came out two years ago. There were (according to the plaintiff) a year of good faith efforts to get paid without going public. If we assume that the guy 1) didn't get *really* torqued at Moore until after word got around about what was in the anti-mockumentaries and/or 2) waited until there was some serious groundswell of anti-Moore sentiment dredged up by the counter movies, and add that with the time preparing legal briefs and all that stuff that I have no idea about, two years isn't *rediculous*. Badly timed, oh yeah. Politically motivated? Probably. Staged to get the maximum effect out of it? Most certainly. But still ~plausible~

Quote:

---

"it doesn't invalidate what is being said"
No, it doesn't and I hope I didn't imply that it did.
My interpretation of what little I learned from the article is that there's no basis for his claim. That would invalidate them.
My supposition about why, and when, he was making his claim was that it wasn't being resolved to his $$$atisfaction in a timely way. Not knowing how that particular court works I can only draw on my labor experience, and conclude that attempting informal resolution doesn't relieve time limits. Having said that, I think he saw his clock ticking down. And anyone can always sue. If it's something covered by insurance, it's us

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME